|
|
Forums:
Community:
Campground:
Re: [altelis] Dear Asshole - a short rant:
Edit Log
|
|
chilli
Jul 24, 2011, 11:20 PM
Views: 4493
Registered: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 401
|
just to be clear, altelis, you and i are making 2 entirely different points here. i'd really like to see the data behind yours by the way.
my statement was not whether or not someone with good intentions was a lousy trainer of a pit. it was that statistically people have been getting/raising them for the wrong reasons (see Sacks, 2000 JAVMA). therefore the positive reinforcement (or lack of punishment) for what we would consider poor behavior is a factor.
both the MMWR's and a retrospective study by the CDC clearly state that pits and rotties are over-represented for fatalities and bites on people (there's no denying that part) for which the breed was identified... i'll say that part again... for which the breed was identified. AAHA has released data showing that more than half of non-fatal dog bites have no report for the breed. This statement is also supported by the CDC studies which went into several paragraphs about the lack of appropriate data for other cases in the study.
In other cases of fatalities and dog bites inflicted by over-represented breeds, the CDC (in an effort to avoid bias) has included in its report things like carrying a baby into the parents' room, which unfortunately proved fatal; or septicemia subsequent to a bite on the arm. The MMWR's and CDC also have plenty of reports of fatal attacks by huskies, boxers, labs, and, yes, 26 golden retriever attacks during the observation period.
Again however, the same theme is repeated by multiple sources: the choice of dog breed for specific untoward purposes reinforces the skewed data (and it doesn't even mention the umbrella categorization of pitbull breeds). in other words, the reputation and subsequent breeding toward that end is a huge part of the problem.
really when it comes down to it, you're going to have assholes looking for some kick-ass guard/fighting dog no matter what. outlawing a single breed simply: A) is not going to prevent the movement underground of the same activities; and B) easily leaves room for a shift in focus to a new breed of dog for the same purpose (on the other side of the coin, as evidence, see the shift law enforcement breeds). Keep in mind that I'm not saying that i mind breed restrictions for specific areas. i do understand the pressures on urban communities with regard to dogs. My point is that simply blaming the intrinsic nature of a particular breed is fallacious when there are so many more factors involved that anecdotal evidence fails to account for.
(This post was edited by chilli on Jul 24, 2011, 11:22 PM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by chilli
() on Jul 24, 2011, 11:20 PM
|
|
Post edited by chilli
() on Jul 24, 2011, 11:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
