OT: More Pit Bulls attacking things

this remind me of this story last year when Joey Porter's Dogs killed a giant horse.
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=42077



Tarik Glenn's possible replacement was the owner of the crazy dogs.

www.Profootballtalk.com

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

Keegs said:

this remind me of this story last year when Joey Porter's Dogs killed a giant horse.
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=42077



Tarik Glenn's possible replacement was the owner of the crazy dogs.

www.Profootballtalk.com

Click to expand...

You do know two of the three dogs doing the "attacking" where boxers not pitbulls. So if you want to sensationalize this make sure to also include boxers in your "more pitbulls attacking things" title. You know since boxers are not pitbulls and all. Might want to clarify a little bit.

Btw the Oorter thing also included another breed. Wonder why the pit is the only breed talked about when speaking of that attack.

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

danny88 said:

You do know two of the three dogs doing the "attacking" where boxers not pitbulls. So if you want to sensationalize this make sure to also include boxers in your "more pitbulls attacking things" title. You know since boxers are not pitbulls and all. Might want to clarify a little bit.

Btw the Oorter thing also included another breed. Wonder why the pit is the only breed talked about when speaking of that attack.

Click to expand...

Ok fine. Boxers are not pit bulls.

there, it's corrected now.

I'm truly sorry for offending you.

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

And in other news, snakes have been seen in the grass.

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

PATSNUTme said:

And in other news, snakes have been seen in the grass.

Click to expand...

a stark departure from recent years in which they were frequently found on planes

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

Keegs said:

Ok fine. Boxers are not pit bulls.

there, it's corrected now.

I'm truly sorry for offending you.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I own 2 pitbulls and I am just waiting for the ignorant comments to start flying. Pitbulls temper score higher then 95 percent of dogs. If raised correctly they are fine dogs. The problem is pits are popular with dog fighters and also low lifes who tend not to rasie there dogs correctly and or promote bad behavior. Hence incident rates running higher then before. That and the media sensationalizing things. If you look at the original article is says pitbulls in big letters when two of the three dogs where not pitbulls at all. Can a colts fan please post these temper scores in the pit thread on the indystar board. Ignorant comments about pitbulls being naturally unstable are thrown around. As shown below that is 100 percent false. Dogs are a product of there owner. Just so happens a lot of the owners of pits are not the best people.


Temperament Test Results

The American Temperament Test Society conducts tests every year on thousands of dogs to determine the soundness of their temperament. The American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier routinely and consistently rank in the average range, and well above many "popular" breeds such as the beagle, collie, doberman pinscher, ****er spaniel and great dane. (Source: American Temperament Test Society)


Alfons Estelt of the American Temperament Test Society, Inc., stated the following with respect to pit bulls: "The American Pit Bull Terriers participating in our temperament evaluation have thus far shown a passing rate of 95%. The other 121 breeds of dogs in our tests showed the average passing rate of 77%"

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

Yeah i know nothing about the temperament of pit bulls.

what i do know is that Joey Porter's dogs savagely mauled an enormous horse.

I'm sure is similar to Vick in how he treats/trains his dogs.

Any dog that could take down Sea biscuit has to be well trained.

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

Keegs said:

this remind me of this story last year when Joey Porter's Dogs killed a giant horse.
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=42077



Tarik Glenn's possible replacement was the owner of the crazy dogs.

www.Profootballtalk.com

Click to expand...

Porters dogs were Rotties and what they mauled to death was a miniature horse. Unfortunately when two agressive dogs (who were likely protection trained) roam free the pack mentality takes over, and the animal they encountered became prey. Could have just as easily been a small human animal left momentarily unattended in a yard. The fault/responsibility lies with the owner of the dogs who didn't take sufficient measures to insure they never got free to roam.

In this case three dogs owned by a couple who apparently have no children were being cared for by a woman who felt it was a good idea to bring along her 4 children, including a crying infant, at feeding time. 11AM is a strange feeding time to boot. There are lots of animals including some two legged ones who simply cannot tolerate a crying infant, even when they aren't hungry. Stupidity and bad choices all around.

The concept that there are no bad dogs is not entirely true, but they are the rare exception to the rule. There are unfortunately a lot of bad dog owners. And apparently thoroughly incompetent dog sitters. Just like there are moronic message board posters...

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

danny88 said:

Thank you. I own 2 pitbulls and I am just waiting for the ignorant comments to start flying. Pitbulls temper score higher then 95 percent of dogs. If raised correctly they are fine dogs. The problem is pits are popular with dog fighters and also low lifes who tend not to rasie there dogs correctly and or promote bad behavior. Hence incident rates running higher then before. That and the media sensationalizing things. If you look at the original article is says pitbulls in big letters when two of the three dogs where not pitbulls at all. Can a colts fan please post these temper scores in the pit thread on the indystar board. Ignorant comments about pitbulls being naturally unstable are thrown around. As shown below that is 100 percent false. Dogs are a product of there owner. Just so happens a lot of the owners of pits are not the best people.


Temperament Test Results

The American Temperament Test Society conducts tests every year on thousands of dogs to determine the soundness of their temperament. The American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier routinely and consistently rank in the average range, and well above many "popular" breeds such as the beagle, collie, doberman pinscher, ****er spaniel and great dane. (Source: American Temperament Test Society)


Alfons Estelt of the American Temperament Test Society, Inc., stated the following with respect to pit bulls: "The American Pit Bull Terriers participating in our temperament evaluation have thus far shown a passing rate of 95%. The other 121 breeds of dogs in our tests showed the average passing rate of 77%"

Click to expand...

Regardless of temperment, the issue with Rotties and Pitbulls is how savagely they attack their prey. So yes, they may have better temperment than a collie. But I would take an encounter with a collie over a pitbull any day.

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

danny88 said:

Thank you. I own 2 pitbulls and I am just waiting for the ignorant comments to start flying. Pitbulls temper score higher then 95 percent of dogs. If raised correctly they are fine dogs. The problem is pits are popular with dog fighters and also low lifes who tend not to rasie there dogs correctly and or promote bad behavior. Hence incident rates running higher then before. That and the media sensationalizing things. If you look at the original article is says pitbulls in big letters when two of the three dogs where not pitbulls at all. Can a colts fan please post these temper scores in the pit thread on the indystar board. Ignorant comments about pitbulls being naturally unstable are thrown around. As shown below that is 100 percent false. Dogs are a product of there owner. Just so happens a lot of the owners of pits are not the best people.


Temperament Test Results

The American Temperament Test Society conducts tests every year on thousands of dogs to determine the soundness of their temperament. The American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier routinely and consistently rank in the average range, and well above many "popular" breeds such as the beagle, collie, doberman pinscher, ****er spaniel and great dane. (Source: American Temperament Test Society)


Alfons Estelt of the American Temperament Test Society, Inc., stated the following with respect to pit bulls: "The American Pit Bull Terriers participating in our temperament evaluation have thus far shown a passing rate of 95%. The other 121 breeds of dogs in our tests showed the average passing rate of 77%"

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are a lot of fine Pit Bulls out there and yours are probably great dogs. I am a dog lover myself and have not been without at least one for the last 50 years. The problem I see with them and other potentially dangerous dogs is that while all dogs can have a bad day, dogs bread to be powerful for whatever reason are much more dangerous than less powerful dogs when they "slip". I also wonder why people choose to own some of these breeds. I can understand the protection aspect to a degree, but aside from that if you just want a dog, there are so many other breeds to choose from that are less dangerous potentially. I think I'd rather have Lassie with a 77% temperament than a pit bull with a 95%. A Pit Bul can kill me. I don't think Lassie can.

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

danny88 said:

You do know two of the three dogs doing the "attacking" where boxers not pitbulls. So if you want to sensationalize this make sure to also include boxers in your "more pitbulls attacking things" title. You know since boxers are not pitbulls and all. Might want to clarify a little bit.

Btw the Oorter thing also included another breed. Wonder why the pit is the only breed talked about when speaking of that attack.

Click to expand...

Actually of the three dogs that attacked two were boxers and one was a pitbull. (According to PFT)

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

I'm amazed we've gotten to page two and no one has asked for mass murder of pitbulls. I'm glad to see it because I love pitbulls. It's all about how you train dogs. My mom always had golden retrievers and funny thing is, the scariest dog I have ever encountered was a golden retriever. I was a baby and the dog basically ripped my face off when I tripped over him. He was always a mean dog but just became more senile. So does this make retriever's bad? No. Some dogs were either not raised right, or are screwey in the head.

I've been to Pitbull kennels where not one dog even barked at me. So honestly, it's all about how you raise the dog. Or some dogs just have mean streaks.

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

Flying Fungi said:

a stark departure from recent years in which they were frequently found on planes

Click to expand...

.....and in politics.

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

zippo59 said:

Actually of the three dogs that attacked two were boxers and one was a pitbull. (According to PFT)

Click to expand...

I know hence me saying two of the three where boxers not pitbulls. Meaning one was a pitbull.

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

MoLewisrocks said:

Porters dogs were Rotties and what they mauled to death was a miniature horse. Unfortunately when two agressive dogs (who were likely protection trained) roam free the pack mentality takes over, and the animal they encountered became prey. Could have just as easily been a small human animal left momentarily unattended in a yard. The fault/responsibility lies with the owner of the dogs who didn't take sufficient measures to insure they never got free to roam.

In this case three dogs owned by a couple who apparently have no children were being cared for by a woman who felt it was a good idea to bring along her 4 children, including a crying infant, at feeding time. 11AM is a strange feeding time to boot. There are lots of animals including some two legged ones who simply cannot tolerate a crying infant, even when they aren't hungry. Stupidity and bad choices all around.

The concept that there are no bad dogs is not entirely true, but they are the rare exception to the rule. There are unfortunately a lot of bad dog owners. And apparently thoroughly incompetent dog sitters. Just like there are moronic message board posters...

Click to expand...

You are right on there. I remember news stories around the time my first daughter was born saying don't use a baby swings around dogs because it could cause them to attack the baby.

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

Regardless of temperment, the issue with Rotties and Pitbulls is how savagely they attack their prey. So yes, they may have better temperment than a collie. But I would take an encounter with a collie over a pitbull any day.

Click to expand...

I can understand the protection aspect to a degree, but aside from that if you just want a dog, there are so many other breeds to choose from that are less dangerous potentially. I think I'd rather have Lassie with a 77% temperament than a pit bull with a 95%. A Pit Bul can kill me. I don't think Lassie can.

Click to expand...

You fine gentleman do realize that Lassie habitually bite Timmy while the pitbull who was in Little Rascals NEVER bite the children. And for some of you who didn't know, collies are known short tempered and snappers... I'll trust my fate with a pitbull before a collie anyday of the week...

I don't like the other breeds, I like rottweilers, mastiffs and pitbulls.. I like the working breeds, their willing to please attitudes, their working drive... However, I imagine alot of you would be shocked to realize that all you would get from my dogs is being licked to death instead of bitten to death...

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

PatsSB42 said:

The problem I see with them and other potentially dangerous dogs is that while all dogs can have a bad day, dogs bread to be powerful for whatever reason are much more dangerous than less powerful dogs when they "slip".

Click to expand...

I think that's precisely the source of the bad public image of the dogs. "Dangerous" breeds doesn't necessarily mean "bad dogs." Pit bulls may not attack any more often than other dogs, but when they do the consequences are more likely to be dire. (Kind of like gun attacks vs. knife attacks...knives are more common, but gun attacks are far deadlier.) So while pit bulls doubtless account for only a tiny fraction of all dog bites, the one person I know who was actually killed by a dog, it was a pit bull. And that's the kind of attack that makes the news, and that people never forget.

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

patchick said:

I think that's precisely the source of the bad public image of the dogs. "Dangerous" breeds doesn't necessarily mean "bad dogs." Pit bulls may not attack any more often than other dogs, but when they do the consequences are more likely to be dire. (Kind of like gun attacks vs. knife attacks...knives are more common, but gun attacks are far deadlier.) So while pit bulls doubtless account for only a tiny fraction of all dog bites, the one person I know who was actually killed by a dog, it was a pit bull. And that's the kind of attack that makes the news, and that people never forget.

Click to expand...

You have a better chance of being killed by a shark or lightning then a pitbull. Much better chance.

A big lab can have a bad day. As well as a big Retriever. You cannot ban dogs because in the rarest of rare occasions person is killed. Look at how many deaths by dog there where last year compared to dogs owned. The number is beyond tiny. You hear about that pomeranin that killed a baby a few months ago? Exactly... Pitbulls are exploited by alot of there owners and the media. The title says it all. Two of these dogs where not even pits. I can show you lists of fatalities and maulings not commited by pits. They never make the national news. Pitbulls are the it shock story.

If you dont want to risk a dog attack dont buy one. You have a far greater chance of being hit by lighting then killed by a rouge dog.

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

Insurance companies are as unemotional and statisical as you can get. Pittbulls, Rotties, and Chow's are on most Homeowners Insurance Companies prohibited dog list. They don't do this because of dislike, they do it because of the frequency and severity of claims from these breeds.

Now I have two Wiener dogs and one of them I wouldn't trust around a little kid. We have tried everything, but she is high strung and kids make her nervous.

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/dogbite/

Re: OT- More Pit Bulls attacking things

danny88 said:

You have a better chance of being killed by a shark or lightning then a pitbull. Much better chance.

A big lab can have a bad day. As well as a big Retriever. You cannot ban dogs because in the rarest of rare occasions person is killed. Look at how many deaths by dog there where last year compared to dogs owned. The number is beyond tiny. You hear about that pomeranin that killed a baby a few months ago? Exactly... Pitbulls are exploited by owners and the media. The title says it all. Two of these dogs where not even pits. I can show you lists of fatalities and mauling not commited by pits. They never make the national news. Pitbulls are the it shock story

Click to expand...

Did I say a word about banning any dogs? My post was about where the public perception comes from. I understand this is an issue near to your heart, but please don't make me your straw man.

Of COURSE pits represent a tiny proportion of maulings; they're a tiny proportion of dogs. And my post repeatedly made clear that I don't assume pits are any more likely to attack than other dogs. The point I was trying to make was that a perfectly fine dog breed can still be reasonably perceived as "dangerous."

Think of it this way: you go outside and jog down the sidewalk. How worried are you that you're going to fall off that sidewalk? Not a bit, I imagine. It's plenty wide enough to run on. OK, now put that same sidewalk 1000 feet up in the air. Would you still feel just fine taking a jog? The chances of falling may be the same, it's the consequences of the accident that changed.

Yes, a pomeranian can kill. Just like you could trip while jogging on the ground, fall into the street and get run over by a car. But rather than showing me lists of fatalities committed by other breeds, how about showing me this: stats on the number of serious/fatal injuries caused by each breed as a percentage of total attacks by that breed. E.g., if one of those pomeranians you cite goes after a human how is that human likely fare vs a comparable encounter with a rottweiler.

Again, I'm not advocating rounding up anybody's beloved pets. I'm just trying to explain where I think the public sentiment against these dogs comes from (in part; unscrupulous breeders and fighters being the other element.)