[DrCaleb]

Yea, I wouldn't trust Akitas either. Same with a male wolfhound. Females are big pookies, but males are known to suddenly turn on a human and they don't play fight. They are in it to win.

All the sheepdogs I've met have been big teddy bears too. You must have met an odd one. And yea, I trust dogs from owners I know too. One fool brought a pitbull to the dog park one time, but it was an unneutered male. What a dipshit!

Unneutered males at a dogpark will instantly get attacked by dogs friendly to each other. But a pitbull! It was lucky that most people could control their dogs.

[Thanos]

I kind of had a sea-change in the way I looked at pitbulls after I read this heartbreaking article here. The entire thing made me ashamed to be a human being.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a2 ... -dog-0814/

$1:

The numbers can be extrapolated to the rest of the country, and they are unconscionable. America is two countries now—the country of its narrative and the country of its numbers, with the latter sitting in judgment of the former. In the stories we tell ourselves, we are nearly always too good: too soft on criminals, too easy on terrorists, too lenient with immigrants, too kind to animals. In the stories told by our numbers, we imprison, we drone, we deport, and we euthanize with an easy conscience and an avenging zeal. We have become schizophrenic in that way, and pit bulls hold up the same mirror as the 2.2 million souls in our prisons and jails and the more than 350,000 people we deport every year. Every year, American shelters have to kill about 1.2 million dogs. But both pro- and anti-pit-bull organizations estimate that of these, anywhere from 800,000 to nearly 1 million are pit bulls. We kill anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 pit bulls a day. They are rising simultaneously in popularity and disposability, becoming something truly American, a popular dog forever poised on the brink of extermination. There is endless argument over the reliability of bite statistics and breed identification and over the question of whether aggression in dogs is associated with specific genes or environmental triggers common to all dogs: that is, whether pit bulls who bite do so because they are pit bulls or because they are more likely to be intact male dogs at the end of a chain. But even if you concede the worst of the statistics—even if you concede the authority of a fourteen-year-old CDC report that implicated pit bulls and rottweilers in a majority of fatal dog attacks—one thing is certain about pit bulls in America: They are more sinned against than sinning.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

I kind of had a sea-change in the way I looked at pitbulls after I read this heartbreaking article here. The entire thing made me ashamed to be a human being.

Yup.

[Prof_Chomsky]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Multimedia-Infographics

I'm on neither side here. I have mixed feelings. But that link is BS. It basically tries to say only 1% of dog's genes differ between breeds so the breed means nothing when it comes to looks and even temperament.

<2% is what separates humans from Apes!! Genes aren't linear. 1 gene difference can affect thousands of individual proteins. 1 gene can be the difference between a 500lb animal and a 5lb animal. It's insane to believe that wolves don't have different innate traits than say a Szihu.

[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Multimedia-Infographics

I'm on neither side here. I have mixed feelings. But that link is BS. It basically tries to say only 1% of dog's genes differ between breeds so the breed means nothing when it comes to looks and even temperament.

<2% is what separates humans from Apes!! Genes aren't linear. 1 gene difference can affect thousands of individual proteins. 1 gene can be the difference between a 500lb animal and a 5lb animal. It's insane to believe that wolves don't have different innate traits than say a Szihu.

You kind of torpedoed your argument there. The differences in genes between us and apes means we can't interbreed. But the .0025% difference (50 genes of 20,000) between dogs does not hinder them so.

And there are vast differences between wolves and any domesticated dogs! Try getting any random wolf to eat out of your hand, but pull out a milk bone at a dog park. Get in the center of a pack of wolves like that, and you'll be tomorrow's stool sample.

[PluggyRug]

This is specially for Andy cos he don't like nothin....

[andyt]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Multimedia-Infographics

I'm on neither side here. I have mixed feelings. But that link is BS. It basically tries to say only 1% of dog's genes differ between breeds so the breed means nothing when it comes to looks and even temperament.

<2% is what separates humans from Apes!! Genes aren't linear. 1 gene difference can affect thousands of individual proteins. 1 gene can be the difference between a 500lb animal and a 5lb animal. It's insane to believe that wolves don't have different innate traits than say a Szihu.

Where the argument falls apart is every breeder and dog lover will tell you that different breeds have different temperaments. To say labs are as likely to be aggressive as pit bulls is just the height of ignorance. Then Caleb compounds it with his houseplants reported as pitbulls crap. The reports we get from vicious, unprovoked attacks we get are primarily bully breeds (as the term seems to be now) and then far back for Rotties. Houseplants, other breeds of dog, not so much.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Multimedia-Infographics

I'm on neither side here. I have mixed feelings. But that link is BS. It basically tries to say only 1% of dog's genes differ between breeds so the breed means nothing when it comes to looks and even temperament.

<2% is what separates humans from Apes!! Genes aren't linear. 1 gene difference can affect thousands of individual proteins. 1 gene can be the difference between a 500lb animal and a 5lb animal. It's insane to believe that wolves don't have different innate traits than say a Szihu.

Where the argument falls apart is every breeder and dog lover will tell you that different breeds have different temperaments. To say labs are as likely to be aggressive as pit bulls is just the height of ignorance. Then Caleb compounds it with his houseplants reported as pitbulls crap. The reports we get from vicious, unprovoked attacks we get are primarily bully breeds (as the term seems to be now) and then far back for Rotties. Houseplants, other breeds of dog, not so much.

So, you are saying you again totally ignored evidence presented? This was in a link earlier:

[andyt]

From your link: Pitbull "bites" are reported a 1000 times more often because pitbull attacks are a 1000 times more harmful than a nip by a chihuahua.

0:

Capture.PNG [ 37.66 KiB | Viewed 90 times ]

[Thanos]

Pibbles are also almost double the population of the other breeds put together. Ten buck says at least half of the "pitbull" attacks are by mutts that bear a resemblance to a pitbull and are described as such by panicky witnesses or by animal control personnel/local politicians/media doofuses with an axe to grind against them.

[andyt]

Yeah, yeah, Caleb already posted the houseplant theory.

[Thanos]

Bart should post his graphic of everything from a pointy stick to a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range being called a Glock in this thread because it's turning out the same as all the gun threads eventually do.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

From your link: Pitbull "bites" are reported a 1000 times more often because pitbull attacks are a 1000 times more harmful than a nip by a chihuahua.

Exactly. They are reported more often. That doesn't mean they occur more often.

Your argument was:

andyt andyt:

To say labs are as likely to be aggressive as pit bulls is just the height of ignorance.

But the stats I posted show that dogs will bite people, regardless of the breed. Some breeds have more serious consequences, but the chihuahua bites still occur. And I've always found the smaller dogs more likely to bite than larger breeds, as the (really inaccurate) CDC report on the subject showed.

To quote (from the same author as the stats you published):

$1:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

But I also notice how Clifton only concentrates on the larger breeds causing disfigurement and death. Not a lot of Chihuahuas in that study now, is there? Labs are just as aggressive as pitbulls, and far less aggressive than Chihuahuas. Just their bite is more serious.

It's also funny how Clifton's study lists 'Aussie Cattle Dog', 'Blue Heeler' and 'Queensland Heeler' as individuals, when these are all different names for the same breed; but 'pitbulls' which is a general classification is listed as one category.

Things that make you go . . .hmmmmmm. Likes to skew statistics much?

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

From your link: Pitbull "bites" are reported a 1000 times more often because pitbull attacks are a 1000 times more harmful than a nip by a chihuahua.

Exactly. They are reported more often. That doesn't mean they occur more often.

Really? You want to draw an equivalency between a nip from a lap dog and a mauling by a pitbull? Pibull maulings are reported because they are a big deal, a nip on the ankle, not so much.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your argument was:

andyt andyt:

To say labs are as likely to be aggressive as pit bulls is just the height of ignorance.

But the stats I posted show that dogs will bite people, regardless of the breed. Some breeds have more serious consequences, but the chihuahua bites still occur. And I've always found the smaller dogs more likely to bite than larger breeds, as the (really inaccurate) CDC report on the subject showed.

Now you're just making my argument for me. Thanks

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

To quote (from the same author as the stats you published):

$1:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

But I also notice how Clifton only concentrates on the larger breeds causing disfigurement and death. Not a lot of Chihuahuas in that study now, is there? Labs are just as aggressive as pitbulls, and far less aggressive than Chihuahuas. Just their bite is more serious.

It's also funny how Clifton's study lists 'Aussie Cattle Dog', 'Blue Heeler' and 'Queensland Heeler' as individuals, when these are all different names for the same breed; but 'pitbulls' which is a general classification is listed as one category.

Things that make you go . . .hmmmmmm. Likes to skew statistics much?

Jesus, you're still at it. Of course he concentrates on the larger breeds causing disfigurement and death. Not a lot of Chihuahuas in there, because they're not causing a lot of disfigurement and death, do they?

Before you claimed there's no difference in aggression between breeds, now you've twisted yourself around 180 degrees in your desperate attempts to exonerate pitbulls. Which is it?

This is about the damage done. The damage done, where people's lives are seriously impacted is by pitbulls and rottweilers in distant second place. You think that's not a problem, your prerogative I guess.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Really? You want to draw an equivalency between a nip from a lap dog and a mauling by a pitbull? Pibull maulings are reported because they are a big deal, a nip on the ankle, not so much.

It was you who said that the height of ignorance was to claim that a lab and a pitbull, and in contrast a pitbull and a chihuahua were not equally aggressive. That is not true.

andyt andyt:

Jesus, you're still at it. Of course he concentrates on the larger breeds causing disfigurement and death. Not a lot of Chihuahuas in there, because they're not causing a lot of disfigurement and death, do they?

Before you claimed there's no difference in aggression between breeds, now you've twisted yourself around 180 degrees in your desperate attempts to exonerate pitbulls. Which is it?

This is about the damage done. The damage done, where people's lives are seriously impacted is by pitbulls and rottweilers in distant second place. You think that's not a problem, your prerogative I guess.

But aggression and outcome are not the same are they? You were quoting Clifton's stats on big dogs, then saying that Chihuahua are not more harmful when they weren't even reported!

And you are confusing two of my arguments as one.

1) All dogs bite.
2) Some dogs have a harder bite.

Saying a small dog is less aggressive because it's bites are not reported is not the same as saying it never bites. You are falling into the same trap as Clifton and the CDC's 2001 report on dog bites - you rely on news reports as your baseline. Bites from a beagle don't make the news, but beagles still bite.