5 police officers injured by dog in Albert Square, East London

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

As for mis-identification of breeds, people would have to be mis-idendtifying dogs as pitbulls at a fairly astonishing rate to make them as hugely dominant in the stats as they are.

You'd be amazed. Even 'experts' used by the DDA in the UK often mistake Labrador or Boxer crosses as 'pit bull type'. Unfortunately over there a dog can be seized if they just think it looks like the type, many harmless family pets have been seized and destroyed for no other reason than an 'expert' can't tell they're a Lab x Boxer and not a bull breed

AboutTwoFiddy wrote: »

You hardly think scumbags who abuse dogs and train their dogs to attack are going to train and keep poodles? Of course they'll keep the bigger breeds such as Rotties and Pitbulls.

If they can't get Rotties and Pitbulls then they'll move onto some other breed. Ban that breed, and they'll get something else. Ban all the big dogs and they'll use small ones. Scumbags are scumbags.

Sounds good in theory, but in reality it would be hard enough to break a big dogs grip, you could possible end up doing more harm than good as the dog would bite down deeper.

I agree there; hitting the dog would probably just piss it off. I'd have gone with the tazer.

seamus

Here is another study from a US government source (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention) that comes to similar conclusions.

Did you actually read the conclusions of that study?

Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-typedogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and therefore should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.

That conclusion pretty much sums up my entire opinion on the matter. I don't deny that it's possible that pit bulls are over-represented in the fatality stats in the same way that black people are over-represented in the prison population.
But there is no data to properly confirm this, and no data to indicate that it's a breed-specific problem rather than a socio-economic problem.

In any case, breed-specific legislation has never had a positive effect on animal attack statistics in any jurisidiction and therefore logically holds no merit.
Dog attacks in general pose such a low risk to general public safety that legislation only needs to look at very general controls around dog ownership and enforcement rather than developing detailed legislation for something which isn't that big a problem in the first place.

listermint

I think Dog Lovers in general have quite a skewed view when this comes up. Suffice to say certain animals are more aggressve than others and it has nothing to do with their background. Its animal instinct and has been so since the dawn of time.

treating them like humans or another species does not override their core instincts.



To deny this is pure stupidity.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Did you actually read the conclusions of that study?

I did, I edited my post. The results table still makes for compelling reading.

66 fatal attacks by purebred (no mistaken identification) pitbulls from 79 to 98.

1 fatal attack by a labrador, despite them being present in substantially greater numbers in the population.

I think that study came down against breed specific legislation because it is difficult to implement practically, which I would agree with.

Batsy

Stratford, in the London Borough of Newham. It's the area where the Olympics are being held.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

66 fatal attacks by purebred (no mistaken identification) pitbulls from 79 to 98.

"Pit bull-type" actually is the wording used. Which pretty much is an oxymoron when used with "purebred". It's a word which could realistically cover 20 to 30 "bull terrier" breeds, or at least 5 of the major and physically very distinct bull breeds.

So please forgive me if I have no confidence in the declaration that there's "no mistaken identity". The animals are identified by sight and by people at the scene (not by anyone doing the study), therefore the scope for mistaken identity is huge.

The simple fact, again, is that the data was scoured from newspaper reports. However much you swing it, it's anecdotal evidence in relation to the breed and completely useless. The report concedes exactly that.

Caliden

Where's that thread on how AH's jokes are getting worse?
This thread is rife with them

MagicSean

listermint wrote: »

I think Dog Lovers in general have quite a skewed view when this comes up. Suffice to say certain animals are more aggressve than others and it has nothing to do with their background. Its animal instinct and has been so since the dawn of time.

treating them like humans or another species does not override their core instincts.



To deny this is pure stupidity.

Actually treating them like humans is what is likely to make them unpredictable and prone to biting. Treating them like an animal is what makes them placid as they know their place.

Certain breeds are not more aggressive but they are capable of being more violent and people nurture their aggressive side because of this.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

"Pit bull-type" actually is the wording used. Which pretty much is an oxymoron when used with "purebred". It's a word which could realistically cover 20 to 30 "bull terrier" breeds, or at least 5 of the major and physically very distinct bull breeds.

So please forgive me if I have no confidence in the declaration that there's "no mistaken identity". The animals are identified by sight and by people at the scene (not by anyone doing the study), therefore the scope for mistaken identity is huge.

The simple fact, again, is that the data was scoured from newspaper reports. However much you swing it, it's anecdotal evidence in relation to the breed and completely useless. The report concedes exactly that.

Perhaps if were arguing over a few percentage points one way or another in the results these confounding factors could be labeled as the principle source of the dominance of one breed or another in the stats.

But the lead these dogs hold in the stats is unassailable, despite them making up a small percentage of the canine population. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this research is very accurate but it is the best available.

There is no denying that pitbulls, and other similar breeds, have been selectively bred for hundreds of years specifically to be aggressive.

With good training it is undoubtedly possible to suppress their killer instinct but it is always there, and can show itself at any time.

Read some of the case reports, it's amazing how many of these dogs were described as previously being docile loving pets and then went on to kill their owners or family members.

seamus

MagicSean wrote: »

Certain breeds are not more aggressive but they are capable of being more violent and people nurture their aggressive side because of this.

"Being more violent" is probably not the way I'd put it. "Better suited to violence" is probably what I'd say, meaning that some breeds are better at fighting than others. Bull breeds for example are typically quite tenacious when a challenge is put up to them. Whereas other dogs may shy away from confrontation, bull breeds (along with a number of other breeds) will tend to stand their ground and protect their space.

This is a by-product not only of their use in dog fighting, but also in home protection.

However as with all animals, the psychology is never that simple and nature and nurture play equally strong roles. Like humans, any dog properly raised and socialised will develop into a calm and social dog. Any dog improperly raised and poorly socialised will turn into a jerk. Just like humans.

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps if were arguing over a few percentage points one way or another in the results these confounding factors could be labeled as the principle source of the dominance of one breed or another in the stats.

But the lead these dogs hold in the stats is unassailable, despite them making up a small percentage of the canine population. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this research is very accurate but it is the best available.

There is no denying that pitbulls, and other similar breeds, have been selectively bred for hundreds of years specifically to be aggressive.

With good training it is undoubtedly possible to suppress their killer instinct but it is always there, and can show itself at any time.

Read some of the case reports, it's amazing how many of these dogs were described as previously being docile loving pets and then went on to kill their owners or family members.

They have not been bred to be aggressive, they have been bred to be strong. You are confusing capability with personality.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps if were arguing over a few percentage points one way or another in the results these confounding factors could be labeled as the principle source of the dominance of one breed or another in the stats.

No, but it does mean that you can't draw any real conclusions based on breed. To do so would be folly because you don't have the data. It's not inconceivable that the breed is incorrectly identified 50% of the time. This would alter the stats massively.

There is no denying that pitbulls, and other similar breeds, have been selectively bred for hundreds of years specifically to be aggressive.

Not aggressive, to fight. There's a difference. An aggressive dog is an uncontrollable one. Pit bulls in particular were bred for fighting in a pit. The last thing a handler would want is a dog who's going to remove some of his fingers when he tries to end the fight.
Dog fighting, like cock-fighting, was also very much a poor mans past-time, and the handlers would typically have the dog live with their family. You can't have an aggressive dog living with your family.
So the breeding specifically developed a line of dogs that were very tough in battle and did not tire easily, but had no tendency for aggression towards humans (and yes, dogs do know the difference between species).

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

They have not been bred to be aggressive, they have been bred to be strong. You are confusing capability with personality.

Refer to the wiki article I linked on "gameness". They have been bred to be strong and aggressive.

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

Refer to the wiki article I linked on "gameness". They have been bred to be strong and aggressive.

That article doesn't mention aggression

seamus

seamus wrote: »

No, but it does mean that you can't draw any real conclusions based on breed. To do so would be folly because you don't have the data. It's not inconceivable that the breed is incorrectly identified 50% of the time. This would alter the stats massively.

That's a pretty big assumption to make. Even if they were mis-identified 50 % of the time, they would still be beating labradors at killing people by a factor of 33.

I'm sorry if I can't find a double blind randomised control trial relating to pitbull attacks, but the evidence that is there, while flawed, contains more than enough information to safely conclude that these dogs kill more people than any other.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry if I can't find a double blind randomised control trial relating to pitbull attacks

You finally understand why these studies are useless for breed-specific purposes.

The evidence in the report allows you safely conclude that in media reports, "pit-bull types" are reported as causing more deaths than any other breed.

To make any other claim is simply wrong. You can't claim in one post that anecdotal evidence is "weak", while in another post use anecdotal evidence to "safely conclude" something. That's just pure hypocrisy.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

Refer to the wiki article I linked on "gameness". They have been bred to be strong and aggressive.

Gameness would be much closer to bravery than agression.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

You can't claim in one post that anecdotal evidence is "weak", while in another post use anecdotal evidence to "safely conclude" something. That's just pure hypocrisy.

If one gathers a large amount of anecdotal evidence and performs statistical analysis on it, it is no longer anecdotal evidence.

Using your logic, large scale drug trials could be dismissed as anecdotal, if you broke them down into the effects of the drug on individual participants.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

If one gathers a large amount of anecdotal evidence and performs statistical analysis on it, it is no longer anecdotal evidence.

I'm afraid that's not the case. It remains anecdotal evidence but is useful as an indicator on how to conduct a more rigorous study to gather actual data.

Using your logic, large scale drug trials could be dismissed as anecdotal, if you broke them down into the effects of the drug on individual participants.

Yes. If the drug trial based its results on a third-hand commercial account of the effect of each drug on participants, where each particpant self-reported what drug they're taking.

Lots of unreliable data doesn't suddenly make a big pile of accurate data. It can give you a good indicator as I say above, but it doesn't make for accurate data on which you can draw "safe" conclusions.

Anecdote: "This one time I was walking down a country road with my sister and a labrador bit her"

Not an anecdote: "An analysis of fatal dog attacks reported in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998 showed that dogs identified as pitbull type killed 66 times more people than dogs identified as labradors."

Yes the evidence is flawed in a variety of ways, I do not contest that. But to call it anecdotal, and to accuse me of being a hypocrite, is simply wrong.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Not an anecdote: "An analysis of fatal dog attacks reported in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998 showed that dogs identified as pitbull type killed 66 times more people than dogs identified as labradors."

Key words highlighted.

You're trying to claim that the report says this:
"An analysis of fatal dog attacks reported in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998 showed that pitbull type dogs killed 66 times more people than labradors."

Although you clearly understand the difference between the two statements, for some reason you seem to be ignoring the unreliability of the identification process and using it to draw "safe" conclusions.

It sounds like I'm being anal and pedantic, but when people decide to draw hard conclusions, then I want to see some hard fncking evidence.

Like I said above, anecdotally in the U.S. black people are more likely to be involved in crime than white people. You can capture thousands of anecdotes to back this up, and make statements that "Perps identified as black people are 5 times more likely to be the criminal than perps identified as white people", and these can be perfectly valid statements. But if you were to try legislating or making definitive judgements about black people on the basis of these statements, you want to some rock solid scientific proof rather than an analysis of anecdotes.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

Anecdote: "This one time I was walking down a country road with my sister and a labrador bit her"

Not an anecdote: "An analysis of fatal dog attacks reported in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998 showed that dogs identified as pitbull type killed 66 times more people than dogs identified as labradors."

Yes the evidence is flawed in a variety of ways, I do not contest that. But to call it anecdotal, and to accuse me of being a hypocrite, is simply wrong.

But reported where? By whom? With what authority to identify dog breeds?

I recall reading somewhere, could have been here, of someone who was badly bitten by a dog; a fact that the papers were all over until they discovered that the dog in question was a Retriever, or something, rather than a RB. As soon as they found that out any interest in them covering the story evaporated.

getz

watching the dog whisperer the other week,he said ;its not the dog in a fight its the fight in the dog ;but then he goes on to say bullies are pitbull killers, i have yet to meet a bullie that doesent avoid a fight,maybe i am lucky

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Key words highlighted.

You're trying to claim that the report says this:
"An analysis of fatal dog attacks reported in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998 showed that pitbull type dogs killed 66 times more people than labradors."

I never tried to claim that. I have already conceded on several occassions that the research is far from perfect.

However, let's approach this using Occam's razor: "Among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect should be preferred"

In order for the huge difference in reported lethal attacks by pitbulls compared to other breeds to be due purely to confounding factors it would require that:

1. Media outlets were ignoring lethal attacks by other breeds on a massive scale. If labs really were killing as many people as pitbulls, in proportion to their numbers, that would be equivalent to several hundred ignored, lethal attacks on people in the U.S. from 79 to 98. Is this really credible? That newspapers would completley omit the death of a person due to dog attack just because the dog wasn't a pitbull? I would like to think if I was attacked and killed by a corgi tomorrow that I would at least get a passing mention in the paper. (Or maybe not, that would be a pretty embarassing death).

2. That people mis identify attacking dogs as pitbulls on a massive scale.

3. That people always accurately identify all the other breeds of dog, and that actual pitbulls rarely or never get mis identified as a different breed.

I prefer the much simpler competing hypothesis:

Pitbulls kill more people than any other breed of dog.

Much simpler. Yes, it is not 100% certain, and I would of course change my mind if compelling evidence to the contrary emerged, but so far the best evidence available suggests that this is the case.

If we were to always wait for evidence that is 100% irrefutable before forming an opinion on something, people would be very indecisive about a lot of things.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I prefer the much simpler competing hypothesis:

Pitbulls kill more people than any other breed of dog.

You'll note that I never disputed that as the most likely conclusion.

My dispute is over your consideration of this as a "safe" conclusion, especially when the competing hypotheses you mention haven't been properly quantified.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

You'll note that I never disputed that as the most likely conclusion.

My dispute is over your consideration of this as a "safe" conclusion, especially when the competing hypotheses you mention haven't been properly quantified.

Fair enough. I change my plea from "safe conclusion" to "most likely conclusion".

Jesus we're an awful pair of pedants.:D

Gevie Stee

MagicSean wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss. i take it you've never been attacked and have no knowledge at all of the ineffectiveness of batons, pepper spray and tasers on wild animals?

Well they would do more to help than standing on a wall watching while your mate gets mauled

jcf

FU*CKING PIGS

i hope the Pig gets rabies

Scruffles

If they can't get Rotties and Pitbulls then they'll move onto some other breed. Ban that breed, and they'll get something else. Ban all the big dogs and they'll use small ones. Scumbags are scumbags.

banning a breed only reduces the amount of the dogs,it doesnt get rid of them far from it.
pitts are banned over here but they are a lot more common than people think,have often seen them being walked [on lead] but unmuzzled in daytime-even just after there has been a widely reported mauling of a baby/child,woud think people woud be far more aware as to the breed they are looking at.

personaly have a lot of sympathy for pitts and the others on the dangerous dogs act ban list,it isnt their fault that they exist in the form we know them,and have some oxygen waster of a human bullying them to bring out their inactive primal instincts.
it shoudnt be the dog that gets put to sleep if it bites a human,it shoud be the owner,the pitt or others shoud be put to use in the police/army/security etc instead of being put to sleep.

pitts can be loving dogs with a responsible owner,sharky [pitbull sharky on youtube,for those who havent heard of him] is proof of that-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf9wHkkNGUU the cat in the family is more agressive than he is.

suicide_circus

Why would someone choose to own a very strong breed of dog which statistically is more likely to attack causing serious injury or death? I would contend that this choice is made so the dog can boost their hardman status/ street cred, things which they value more than the safety of others. I know it is not the dogs fault it has been bred to have strength and aggression, but it has. I also know the dogs behaviour will be mostly down to the owner but I dont care. Choosing to have a dog which is genetically predisposed to both strength and aggression is an act of vanity and selfishness.

MagicSean

jcf wrote: »

FU*CKING PIGS

i hope the Pig gets rabies

It's a dog not a pig.

MagicSean

suicide_circus wrote: »

Why would someone choose to own a very strong breed of dog which statistically is more likely to attack causing serious injury or death? I would contend that this choice is made so the dog can boost their hardman status/ street cred, things which they value more than the safety of others. I know it is not the dogs fault it has been bred to have strength and aggression, but it has. I also know the dogs behaviour will be mostly down to the owner but I dont care. Choosing to have a dog which is genetically predisposed to both strength and aggression is an act of vanity and selfishness.

My Rottie is there to protect my partner and home when I work nights. She isn't aggressive at all but she is very protective of our home and has the muscle to protect it too. i also have a jack Russel as they are better watch dogs and also keep the mice away. Both are perfectly valid reasons to have a dog.

On the other hand my cousin has a miniature yorkie that has her own miniature four poster bed. There is no valid reason I would have a dog like that.

suicide_circus

MagicSean wrote: »

My Rottie is there to protect my partner and home when I work nights. She isn't aggressive at all but she is very protective of our home and has the muscle to protect it too. i also have a jack Russel as they are better watch dogs and also keep the mice away. Both are perfectly valid reasons to have a dog.

On the other hand my cousin has a miniature yorkie that has her own miniature four poster bed. There is no valid reason I would have a dog like that.

Yep, a tough guy likes to know he.has a big dog at home to protect his little woman while he's off hunting and gathering. Seriously, if anyone seriously wanted to get at your partner, or the rest of your property, they could kill both dogs quite easily.

MagicSean

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yep, a tough guy likes to know he.has a big dog at home to protect his little woman while he's off hunting and gathering. Seriously, if anyone seriously wanted to get at your partner, or the rest of your property, they could kill both dogs quite easily.

Perhaps. But if someone is looking for an easy target they will move on if they see a large dog.