Online Petition _against_ the ban of Pitbulls.

[Nibi]

Also on another note, only 185 more people are needed to sign the petition!

[Ember]

I'm for the ban of pit bulls.

They are demonstratively dangerous and have seriously injured and killed children with no provocation.

Yes, it largely comes down to the owner but there's no method in place for screening dog owners so the only reasonable thing to do is ban the breed.

There are lots of other dogs out there and there's no reason to own one that can so easily turn dangerous.

[Akonite]

I'm for the ban of pit bulls.

They are demonstratively dangerous and have seriously injured and killed children with no provocation.

Yes, it largely comes down to the owner but there's no method in place for screening dog owners so the only reasonable thing to do is ban the breed.

There are lots of other dogs out there and there's no reason to own one that can so easily turn dangerous.

Actually that is a largely false view that is mainly driven by the media. There are many breeds that have never had a ban law that have higher bite and death statistics than pitbulls.

In fact for the most part research has found that a large percentage of bites etc. has almost nothing to do with the particular breed.

Misleading information has built this common view and its unfortunate that people perpetuate it.

Here is further info.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/NCRC%20Preliminary%20Report%202011.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/

Please ensure you do proper research before supporting or denouncing any possible new law. It may be damaging.

[Temrin]

*seconding Akonite. Thanks as well, for the info links :) *

[Ember]

I have done my research, have you?

"In the United States, pit bull-type dogs and rottweilers were involved in more than half of 238 dog-attack deaths; they were followed by German shepherds, husky-type dogs, and malamutes in the number of deaths caused"
Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/ (AKA Your own source)

One 9-year (1979–1988) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks where breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%).[36] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[37] One 5-year (1989–1994) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (28.6%) of the 84 deaths where breed was recorded.[38]

One 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45.4%).[39] Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were involved in most of these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) attacks were attributed to pit bulls. All other dogs combined accounted for the remaining 65% of attacks.[40] In 44.8% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.[40] The authors state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Attacks_on_Humans

[Akonite]

I have done my research, have you?

"In the United States, pit bull-type dogs and rottweilers were involved in more than half of 238 dog-attack deaths; they were followed by German shepherds, husky-type dogs, and malamutes in the number of deaths caused"
Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/ (AKA Your own source)

One 9-year (1979–1988) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks where breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%).[36] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[37] One 5-year (1989–1994) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (28.6%) of the 84 deaths where breed was recorded.[38]

One 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45.4%).[39] Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were involved in most of these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) attacks were attributed to pit bulls. All other dogs combined accounted for the remaining 65% of attacks.[40] In 44.8% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.[40] The authors state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Attacks_on_Humans

Actually yes I have. And, apologies, but I will keep my info from the Canadian Vetrenary Journal witch has been published in several reputable places over a wikipedia article.

If you read the link I posted it even noted that american studies are base largely off MEDIA reports.

It goes on to disprove your information:

"The American Staffordshire terrier, the most widely legislated breed in Canada in the period under study, caused 1 fatality (Table 1). The rottweiler, a target of breed-specific legislation in fewer jurisdictions, and the husky, possibly an unlegislated breed, caused more fatalities, as did the mixed-breed dogs. The rottweilers, huskies, and the mixed-breed dogs were also represented in larger numbers."

Here is a link to an easy to read table:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/table/t1-cvj49pg577/

In essence based on your train of thought we should start to ban Huskies.

[Ember]

So you say that you can't trust news paper reports on the subject and then go on to link to a table of data from news paper reports?

Huskies are featured so heavily in your table because they are talking about sled dog attacks (and obviously huskies are the predominant sled dogs.) I don't think people around here are too concerned with a roving pack of sled dogs mowing them down.

The first wikipedia quotes comes from the Centers for Disease control:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2769900
and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8657532

Or how about this from US Department of Health and Human Services:

We identified 109 dog bite-related fatalities, of which 57% were less than 10 years of age. The death rate for neonates was two orders of magnitude higher than for adults and the rate for children one order of magnitude higher. Of classifiable deaths, 22% involved an unrestrained dog off the owner's property, 18% involved a restrained dog on the owner's property, and 59% involved an unrestrained dog on the owner's property. Eleven attacks involved a sleeping infant; 19 dogs involved in fatal attacks had a prior history of aggression; and 19 of 20 classifiable deaths involved an unneutered dog. Pit bulls, the most commonly reported breed, were involved in 24 deaths; the next most commonly reported breeds were rottweilers (16) and German shepherds (10).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8657532



This report doesn't use any news paper reports- it uses patient medical records:

RESULTS:

Our Trauma and Emergency Surgery Services treated 228 patients with dog bite injuries; for 82 of those patients, the breed of dog involved was recorded (29 were injured by pit bulls). Compared with attacks by other breeds of dogs, attacks by pit bulls were associated with a higher median Injury Severity Scale score (4 vs. 1; P = 0.002), a higher risk of an admission Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or lower (17.2% vs. 0%; P = 0.006), higher median hospital charges ($10,500 vs. $7200; P = 0.003), and a higher risk of death (10.3% vs. 0%; P = 0.041).
CONCLUSIONS:

Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475022

[Akonite]

Actually in the table 'Sled Dog' was a separate category from Husky. But I digress.

Regardless, we can throw numbers back and forward until our faces are blue. And I'm on my phone and frankly this is hurting my fingers. The point is most of the data is incomplete and A proper study has never been completed over if these kind of laws would have any effect. Passing any kind of law based on bad or incomplete information just isn't right. If you want to use 'dangerous breed' laws then you have to include animals like Huskies and German Sephards and Rotties. Singling out one breed because they are portrayed as killers is not right.

In fact 5% of cat bites result in hospitalization. We should look into them having controls too.

1 death in the country does not constitute a law that targets only a percentage of the perceived problem nor does it constitute the governmental costs associated with implementing and inforcing such a law. It's a waste of time and tax dollars and is only an issue because the media has made it an issue.

If you are worried about breeds, simply link a law as punishment to weather or not the owner was following proper bylaws such as having your dog leashed. If the owner broke a bylaw resulting in an injury, the owner should face the consequences, not an entire breed of animal. A simple solution requiring next to no tax dollars and which targets none of the breeds high percentage of well trained and happy animals.

Thanks for the interesting discussion. ;)

[tokar]

well i guess they will be banning poodles as they are more protective and have a natural tendency to go for the throat.  no living children after their throat gets torn out.

does the media report that the injured child was tugging the dogs tail, pulling its ears, or poking at it in ways that, if that child was doing these things to you, you would want to hit the child just to make it stop?  NO  the media does not report this as they can only report what they are told by the victims mother / parent who is usually hysterical at that point.

so far i have never seen an aggressive pit bull that was not provoked first.

we are all entitled to our own opinions.  unfortunately opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one. right or wrong, our opinions are valid to us and should be respected, even if you are wrong. 

[Tef]

Unprovoked? I'm not an animal psychologist myself - there's a reason 99% of the time for anything. I have to support Tokar on this point.

I've got slashed on the face by my relatives' cat when I was a kid out of my own stupidity - and I have yet to order the worldwide ban, if not, species-cide of cats. To this day, I still feel quite horrible for the cat having been expelled from my relatives' family for something that wasn't his fault.

I've got bitten by a Chinese Mongrel for petting him - initially, I thought it was an unprovoked reaction, but in retrospect shortly afterwards, I realized I had suffered from a nosebleed minutes ago and the dog was driven into frenzy for getting a whiff of my dried blood on my fingers.

[Nibi]

Oh jeez, I'm gone for a couple days and it gets heated in here. Haha.

I actually plan on going to school to study animal behavior/psychology and I spend a lot of my spare time looking into it. I've mentioned it before and I'll say it again, dogs never randomly attack. It just doesn't happen. That's why I'm so set on people being educated instead of animals being banned. Not just for Pitbulls but other species out there too. If people knew what to look for, then the likeliness of getting attacked by a dog (or other animal) would be far less. It just appears to be random attacks to untrained eyes.

Is the dogs tail stiff and standing straight up or tucked between it's tail? Is it lifting up one paw? Do you see the whites of its eye? Is its mouth close? Mouth pulled back? Teeth showing? Stiff face, body? Little things like these can give away how a dog feels around you and one wrong move and you can be bit. Same thing for cats. If your making one angry their tails start to wag/flick about more frequently and their backs look like they are having occasional muscle spasms.

The other day my friend was going off about how she hated cats because mine scratched her. She completely did not see, because she didn't know what to look for, that my cat was getting pissed off by the way she was petting him. And I had to explain to her in detail how to be respectful to my cat and not piss it off. xD Now she knows. And I think everybody should know things like this about dogs.

[Ember]

If grown adults can't see the signs of a dangerous dog than what chance do children have?

Kids are attacked and killed by pit-bulls. More so than any other breed of dog.

Anyone arguing that pit-bulls aren't dangerous animals has a base misunderstanding of what some words mean.

[Tosca]

Signed and shared. :) I've never supported the banning of specific dog breeds and never will.

If grown adults can't see the signs of a dangerous dog than what chance do children have?

Kids are attacked and killed by pit-bulls. More so than any other breed of dog.

Kids are attacked and killed by dogs period more so than adults. It has nothing to do with pitbulls and everything to do with the kids not being able to interpret canine body language like adults and other dogs can. Making sure that kids and adults alike know not to run up to strange dogs, and teaching them how to watch for signs of annoyance with the dog, is far more effective than blanket-banning a breed and punishing the owners who raise their dogs right.

Anecdotally, I dogwalk and a puppy I walk with got attacked by a dog who was sitting by a car. It's owner had two young kids with it. The dog came up all happy to the puppy, sniffed him, realized he wasn't neutered, and bit him between the legs with no warning signs.
That dog was a Dalmatian--an incredibly high-energy breed that takes a lot of training and activity to keep calm. I had to physically kick him off the puppy to get him to let go, and the owner clearly didn't care one whit. Aggression has little to do with the breed, and a lot to do with training the dog. Part of the stigma around pits being aggressive comes from people being taught that they are, however false that might be, and then buying or adopting them for the sole purpose of having an untrained, aggressive guard dog. You need to make sure the owner's raising their dog correctly, not outright ban an entire breed of dog from the province. Owners are smarter than their dogs. They know their dog's mind and (usually) know to keep aggressive dogs away from children. It's not the dog's fault if it has a moronic owner.

[Akonite]

If grown adults can't see the signs of a dangerous dog than what chance do children have?

Kids are attacked and killed by pit-bulls. More so than any other breed of dog.

Anyone arguing that pit-bulls aren't dangerous animals has a base misunderstanding of what some words mean.

I have a good understanding of the English language. Pitt Bulls certainly CAN be dangerous animals. I have yet to meet one however that demonstrated more aggression towards humans than other breeds.

I used to foster problem Pitts for the humane society and was a proud dad to a Staffordshire Terrior (thought to be the 'worst of the bunch'). I believe years of one on one experience with the breed gives me an educated userstading of them. The thought of a knee-jerk reaction law banning a breed of dog due to fear mongering that would have prevented me from having one of the best and most gentle friends I've ever had is insulting and wrong.

Kids being attacked is sad. Theres no denying that. But almost every attack could have been avoided by
Either the owner or the parent. Lots more kids and adults are injured or killed by electricity. We don't ban electricity we educate people. We fine for misuse or negligence.

We need to stop deflecting blame onto other things. This idea that we can make the world
Ultra safe for everyone is unfortunate. Again, one death a year does not an emergency make. Nor does it require obscene amounts of tax dollars to implement and enforce new laws. You can argue that Pitts are 'the most dangerous' but If they're banned then a new breed tops the list. Gotta ban the new
Most dangerous then! And onwards we go until we can only have pet gerbils.

[Tef]

Quick question out of curiousity Ember - have you, or a close friend/family member/person of importance of yours, ever been assaulted by a cat or a dog in your life, breed notwithstanding?

---

If we do a perspective shift on the issue:

Pups and kittens have been kicked out or permanently injured and abused, due to the owners acting in a manner of an "unprovoked assault" towards the said canine/feline young.

Then what would you all think?

---
The world as ultra safe is illusive in short. I always believe that the presence, sentiment, and feeling of danger and conflict is important to society. Heaven and hell on earth is not so much a worry as to how one would subjectively negotiate upon the issue at hand.