Pit Bull kills child as part of God's plan [Archive]

clarsct

12th June 2005, 11:57 PM

Wow.

I am......Awed...

So...to escape guilt/blame/etc, she says 'well Godidit!'

If I were God I'd be pretty embarrased right now....and she'd know some righteous anger.

I'm sick and fecking tired of these fecking ********* chalking the whole thing up to a higher power. It's like they never learned to take responsibility for their own actions. What parallel dimension did these people grow up in?! What kind of fecking logic do you have to use to do this kind of .....hell......there isn't even a word, is there? I can't help but think of that poor kid, in his last moments he probably called out to the same woman who put him there. And what does she have to say about it? GODIDIT?! It's the CHILD's fault? Anyone's fault but her own. Makes me fecking sick. She talked to the press because she was worried about what someone might think of her. How fecking selfless. Someone might see that she's barely competent to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Sorry..but this one REALLY got to me. I need to stop, before I bend the rules enough to get warned...

It's things like this that have me leaning less agnostic and more and more atheist.

CFLarsen

13th June 2005, 12:13 AM

Are there any reasons why the non-actions of this mother are any different from the non-actions of mothers that endanger their children (even others) lives by not having their children vaccinated? By taking their children to quacks?

RandFan

13th June 2005, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Are there any reasons why the non-actions of this mother are any different from the non-actions of mothers that endanger their children (even others) lives by not having their children vaccinated? By taking their children to quacks? Perhaps but I also think that this women was more than just non-active. She actively put her son at risk.

clarsct

13th June 2005, 12:28 AM

NO

Well..maybe.

This mother wasn't tricked into it by a bunch of lowlifes, she did it all by her lonesome. This was the result of sheer negligence. If someone else had told her this was a great idea, or wrote a book in which locking children in basements, yet leaving them alone with vicious animals is a good idea, then I might have some sympathy for her. As it stands, it is more akin to the idea that she beat the boy to death. No excuse.

People who fall for the anti-vaccine and hpathy scams usually mean well. They have been misinformed. They fell for a line from a good salesman. Who hasn't?

What she did was a deliberate act that put the child directly in the path of an animal she KNEW might be vicious. Then she tried to absolve herself of guilt by saying it was the child's fault or GODIDIT.

No, my friend, this was lower than a snake's belly. Not just the act itself, but the justification for it afterwards. Sorry, but I have no sympathy.

CFLarsen

13th June 2005, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by clarsct
NO

Well..maybe.

This mother wasn't tricked into it by a bunch of lowlifes, she did it all by her lonesome. This was the result of sheer negligence. If someone else had told her this was a great idea, or wrote a book in which locking children in basements, yet leaving them alone with vicious animals is a good idea, then I might have some sympathy for her. As it stands, it is more akin to the idea that she beat the boy to death. No excuse.

People who go to quacks are not necessarily tricked into it. Quite contrary, one of the biggest problems is that people actively seek out quacks, astrologers, dowsers, healers etc.

Even though Denmark is a small country, I often come across a practicing whatever, that I haven't heard about, or can find any information about. They don't even need to advertise, because their customers flock to them.

Originally posted by clarsct
People who fall for the anti-vaccine and hpathy scams usually mean well. They have been misinformed. They fell for a line from a good salesman. Who hasn't?

It's not that simple. You'll often find a deeply-rooted disdain of science and doctors in particular.

Originally posted by clarsct
What she did was a deliberate act that put the child directly in the path of an animal she KNEW might be vicious. Then she tried to absolve herself of guilt by saying it was the child's fault or GODIDIT.

No, my friend, this was lower than a snake's belly. Not just the act itself, but the justification for it afterwards. Sorry, but I have no sympathy.

I don't either, that wasn't why I asked the question. I fail to understand how there can be no charges, though.

The mother of a San Francisco boy killed by the family pit bulls is talking about why she thinks the dogs attacked. She says she doesn't blame the animals.
...
The mother of a 12-year-old boy killed in his own home by at least one of the family's two pit bulls says she had been so concerned about one of the dogs that she shut her son in the basement to protect him.

Maureen Faibish said she ordered Nicholas to stay in the basement while she did errands on June 3, the day he was attacked by one or both of the dogs. She said she was worried about the male dog, Rex, who was acting possessive because the female, Ella, was in heat.

"I put him down there, with a shovel on the door," Faibish said in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. "And I told him: `Stay down there until I come back.' Typical Nicky, he wouldn't listen to me."

Simply amazing. She blames it not on the dogs, not on herself, but entirely on her son.

clarsct

13th June 2005, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
People who go to quacks are not necessarily tricked into it. Quite contrary, one of the biggest problems is that people actively seek out quacks, astrologers, dowsers, healers etc.

Alas, I think you're right here. Your question, I admit, caught me off guard. I was trying to give people the benefit of a doubt. In the case where it's the parent pushing this BS, then my NO stands. I get equally angry, though I DO try to contain myself a bit better. This whole story caught me off guard, one might say.

Even though Denmark is a small country, I often come across a practicing whatever, that I haven't heard about, or can find any information about. They don't even need to advertise, because their customers flock to them.
How very sad, though I am sure it happens here, too. I just heard an ad for a chiropractor that can keep your child well without the need for vaccines. He also stated vaccines cause cancer....hmmm....think I could sue him for false advertising?
Different topic..sorry.

It's not that simple. You'll often find a deeply-rooted disdain of science and doctors in particular.
I assume you're talking about the parents again? or the salesmen? If the parents, then see above; if the salesmen, then it is because that is the only way TO sell it. Not that it's right, it isn't. It's just the way they perpetuate their... hmmmmm... wrongness? evil?

I don't either, that wasn't why I asked the question. I fail to understand how there can be no charges, though.
You and me both.

Simply amazing. She blames it not on the dogs, not on herself, but entirely on her son.

Oh, and God...it was God's decision, after all. This was where I had the most problem. No personal responsibility. None.

And it was for that reason she earned my venom. I usually do a better job of containment, but this went over the top for me.

Roadtoad

13th June 2005, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by clarsct
Oh, and God...it was God's decision, after all. This was where I had the most problem. No personal responsibility. None.

And it was for that reason she earned my venom. I usually do a better job of containment, but this went over the top for me.

You and me both, bro. The kid was twelve years old. How responsible were you when you were twelve? And why the hell would you give greater rights to the dogs than to your kid!?!?! What kind of imbecile is this woman?

For that matter, why the hell isn't the DA's office pressing charges, tough ones, for this woman's actions? This isn't mere negligence; that would be leaving the kid at home without the A/C on, or forgetting to pick him up from school. This is more akin to pushing the kid into the path of an oncoming BART train.

seayakin

13th June 2005, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
You and me both, bro. The kid was twelve years old. How responsible were you when you were twelve? And why the hell would you give greater rights to the dogs than to your kid!?!?! What kind of imbecile is this woman?

For that matter, why the hell isn't the DA's office pressing charges, tough ones, for this woman's actions? This isn't mere negligence; that would be leaving the kid at home without the A/C on, or forgetting to pick him up from school. This is more akin to pushing the kid into the path of an oncoming BART train.

The only thing I can hope is that the DA is gathering evidence to press charges. This may not be realistic but I can hope for a little while.

Its cases like these that make me believe people should be licensed before they can have kids.

CFLarsen

13th June 2005, 08:01 AM

Thinking a bit more about it, this case raises a lot of good questions.

Just where are the limits of personal responsibility drawn? I've asked Beth in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870939785#post1870939785) that question, but we can discuss it here, too.

Just when does government step in? When do the citizens have a right to step in? This would be "The Case"?

seayakin

13th June 2005, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thinking a bit more about it, this case raises a lot of good questions.

Just where are the limits of personal responsibility drawn? I've asked Beth in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870939785#post1870939785) that question, but we can discuss it here, too.

Just when does government step in? When do the citizens have a right to step in? This would be "The Case"?

This is an important question. I have wonder this because I recently read a report about a family in Texas who's children were removed from their home by family services because they refused radiation treatment for their daughter with cancer.

MSNBC Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8159151/)

Is this going too far?

Some easy instances are when a parent:

Causes deliberate and direct physical harm (e.g. breaks the arm of their kid, whips their kid, etc.)
Causes deliberate and direct psychological torture (e.g. drops a kid in a cage of 40 rats or whatever knowing the kid is afraid of them)

Jas

13th June 2005, 09:52 AM

Faibish said she felt compelled to call the newspaper Saturday to defend herself against widespread public outrage directed at families with children who own pit bulls, deeming them irresponsible parents.

Yeah, great way to defend yourself, blame the kid.

Although thinking that families with children and pitbulls are irresponsible is also crap.

It's her fault, not the kid's, not the dogs'.

13th June 2005, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by LostAngeles
...

Infinitied.
To aleph one, at least.

Lisa Simpson

24th June 2005, 08:47 AM

Update:

Mom's been charged with child endangerment. (http://www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/06/24/news/20050634_ne01_mauled.txt)

billydkid

24th June 2005, 09:17 AM

Like everyone else, I find these killings by dogs heart rending in the extreme. I can not imagine the complete heartbreak of losing child in this way or in any other way. It is worth noting that many dog attacks are attributed to pit bulls (really, there are a variety of fairly dissimilar dog type that are often refered to as pitbulls.) are in fact commits by other breeds altogether. There are standards by which the AKC determines a dog to legitimately be a pitbull.

I happen to own a dog which is predominantly an American Staffordshire Terrier - one of the types that is refered to as a pitbull. I have to say, this dog is the most well adjusted and good natured creatures I have ever encountered - not only to humans but to other dogs, cats and even ducks. Even after having suffered abuse as a young dog at the hands of a former owner this dog is remarkably well adjusted and affectionate and completely non-aggressive. You can take raw meat from this animals mouth without a hint of an issue. The same can not be said for his beagle sister.

I have to also say that I have known several other pit bulls and not a one of them has shown any aggression toward humans or other animals. I have known A**hole owners who disposed of their pitbull dogs for the crime of not being aggressive. There is certainly no doubt that there are certain particular dogs and bloodlines of this type of dog that are dangerous and should not be maintained (true of any breed), but breed specific legislation will do nothing to alleviate dog attack problems and will victimize wonderful animals as well as their owners.

pgwenthold

24th June 2005, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by billydkid
I happen to own a dog which is predominantly an American Staffordshire Terrier - one of the types that is refered to as a pitbull. I have to say, this dog is the most well adjusted and good natured creatures I have ever encountered - not only to humans but to other dogs, cats and even ducks. Even after having suffered abuse as a young dog at the hands of a former owner this dog is remarkably well adjusted and affectionate and completely non-aggressive. You can take raw meat from this animals mouth without a hint of an issue. The same can not be said for his beagle sister.

I am not convinced that there are necessarily breeds of dogs that are inherently more aggressive than others. I'm sure there's a lot to "There are no bad dogs, only bad owners." OTOH, an aggressive Wired Haired Dachsund is not much of a threat to kill old Aunt Millie if she goes out of control.

So even it were true that pitbulls were, on the average, _less_ aggressive than other breeds, it can still be a more dangerous breed.

DragonLady

24th June 2005, 10:28 AM

I don't know...but I'm going to give this woman a few seconds of the benefit of a doubt.

I'm wondering if she left the boy in the basement because she was so afraid of the dogs she didn't want to lead him past them to take him out of the house with her?

If she was that worried about them, trying to round them up to put them into the basement or chain them or anything else may have seemed impossible.

Then I wondered if the boy shouldn't have behaved just a bit better? I'm always telling my kids that sometimes "obey" means they have to do exactly as I'm telling them with no room for error, rebellion, or playing around. It might not be "right" that they have to, but the alternative may be to be "dead right". I don't want to bury a kid because he wouldn't keep quiet in a hostage situation. Or refused to leave a burning house without his comic book collection. Or refused to stay in the basement with a potentially murderous dog wandering around overhead.

My Dad taught me that "Be quiet!" meant absolute silence. "Sit still" meant don't move a muscle, and "Stay in the basement" meant stay in the basement.

I know parents don't teach that level of compliance anymore. I haven't -my kids defy me in ways that would've gotten me a beating that would still hurt. But that doesn't stop me trying to impress on them that sometimes kids puts themselves into mortal danger -without even knowing it- by disobeying and defying the rules.

In another thread, people are calling the boy who was lost in Utah an idiot for taking his mother's admonition against talking to strangers too literally. But he's still alive. This boy apparently thought his mother's order to stay in the basement was a joke. And he's quite dead now.

Mind you, I don't think Mom did the right thing. But I can understand a bit if she thought the dogs were just fine and easy to get along with until the female went into heat and they suddenly became a menace. Personally, I would have stayed in the basement with the kid. Or I would've made my husband leave work to come take control of the mutts -preferably in another county. Or my "errand" would've been to pop into the nearest convenience store for a box of rat poison.

But let's not, in all our griping about her mistakes, forget that sometimes kids need to behave. They need to act as if their lives depend on doing as they are told. :(

crimresearch

24th June 2005, 10:36 AM

My Dad taught me that "Be quiet!" meant absolute silence. "Sit still" meant don't move a muscle, and "Stay in the basement" meant stay in the basement.
I know parents don't teach that level of compliance anymore.

And neither do some dog owners.

I agree with your overall points about teaching kids...but it takes work to turn a pet into a murderous machine like that, particularly that breed.

DragonLady

24th June 2005, 11:18 AM

And neither do some dog owners.

That's true.

I agree with your overall points about teaching kids...but it takes work to turn a pet into a murderous machine like that, particularly that breed.

I don't know. A pit bull is a mass of muscles and teeth. I don't think one has to be a "murderous machine" to be dangerous.

A few years ago, my Dad had a black lab. The friendliest dog you could ask for -he had a terrific disposition, and I adored him. When Dad had to leave for a while, I cheerfully took the dog.

But the damn thing started knocking me flat, standing on my chest and drooling into my face. It was just being "friendly", but compared to him I was just a plaything. I used the old newspaper-across-the-nose trick a few times, and that helped a bit.

But one day he shoved me back up against the wall with both feet in my chest, licking my whole face. I kept trying to put my knee into his belly, but he was so big I just couldn't. I ended up in a heap on the floor trying to ward him off with both my arms over my head. The sudden realization that this friendly, overexuberant dog was going to cheerfully and kindly maul me into the hospital was terrifying. I had no choice but to chain it outside until Dad got home.

Now, I know that a dog doesn't have to be "mean" or "vicious" or "murderous" to be dangerous. It just has to be big enough to push a grown adult around like a rag doll.

And.... I realize I'm not being fair to the woman this topic is about. She couldn't poison the dogs. That would be animal abuse. And she couldn't take her son past them out of the house -that would've been endangering the child, too. And neither of the articles I've seen mention if she's married; I just assume she is because most of those dogs are owned by low-life men who see them as extra muscles. I think she probably did the best thing she could under the circumstances, short of calling someone (who would you call? Animal control? A pest removal service? The AKC?) to come remove them. :(

pgwenthold

24th June 2005, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady

I don't know. A pit bull is a mass of muscles and teeth. I don't think one has to be a "murderous machine" to be dangerous.

See my comments above about "aggressive" vs "dangerous." If your dad's dog had been a chinese pug, his actions are not a problem at all.

Now, I know that a dog doesn't have to be "mean" or "vicious" or "murderous" to be dangerous. It just has to be big enough to push a grown adult around like a rag doll.

I know that great danes scare the snot out of me. Not because I am worried that they will bite or anything, but if they act anything like my little 25 pounder, they are seriously going to hurt someone. And I am talking about a non-agressive, happy little dog but one who likes to play.

And.... I realize I'm not being fair to the woman this topic is about. She couldn't poison the dogs. That would be animal abuse. And she couldn't take her son past them out of the house -that would've been endangering the child, too. And neither of the articles I've seen mention if she's married; I just assume she is because most of those dogs are owned by low-life men who see them as extra muscles. I think she probably did the best thing she could under the circumstances, short of calling someone (who would you call? Animal control? A pest removal service? The AKC?) to come remove them. :(

There was a comment from her that "she loves the dogs to death." Doesn't sound like someone who is desparate to get rid of them but can't find the appropriate means.

DragonLady

24th June 2005, 12:12 PM

There was a comment from her that "she loves the dogs to death." Doesn't sound like someone who is desparate to get rid of them but can't find the appropriate means.

Yes, I see the comment now. And re-reading, I see she is married. Her husband and other children moved to Oregon, leaving her, the boy & the dogs with a plan to move later.

I don't know how I would've acted in her place. I keep thinking I would've stayed in the basement with the boy...but for how long? The boy had already been bitten once, but maybe Mom thought he willfully provoked it?

My son was bitten by a fox terrior we used to have. I wanted to put it down right then, but we gave it away to a friend who had no children instead. But one day we were visiting, and my son tried to pet the dog -and it bit him again. But until then, I never imagined that it would. I figured he provoked it somehow the first time, and that both boy and dog learned something the hard way. Now, I know that isn't true -once a dog bites, it just goes right on biting. And now we have a hard-and-fast rule that if a dog bites anyone we will have it put down or kill it ourselves if we must -by whatever means neccesary. If I go to prison because I was forced to kill a vicious 150 lb mutt with a shovel, well, so be it. Of course, I do whatever I can to make sure such a terrible situation will never occur.

Honestly, I see nothing but victims. I think the dogs were so far out of control she had no real choices. If she killed them, she faced charges -and probably her husband's wrath. If she took the boy with her, she had to lead him through the house, past the dogs -an untenable situation, considering they already viewed the boy as a potential target or worse -prey. She couldn't stay in the basement with him forever. They were both going to have to eat, sleep...use the bathroom. And if she honestly believed the dogs were only aggressive because they were trying to mate, then she saw the situation as temporary and thought it would work itself out in time.

The real criminals here are the dogs.

Jas

24th June 2005, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by billydkid
It is worth noting that many dog attacks are attributed to pit bulls (really, there are a variety of fairly dissimilar dog type that are often refered to as pitbulls.) are in fact commits by other breeds altogether.

Very true. The majority of people cannot distinguish a pitbull from other dogs. For evidence of this, check out this [/B][/QUOTE] online quiz. (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html)

Many of the people in the shelter I was at, and everyone at City Animals Services, failed. Most people refer to any intimidating dog they see as a 'pitbull'.

Another point worth mentioning is that attacks by other breeds of dogs often go unreported in the media. The same week as the 'pitbull' attack in Ontario which prompted the recent ban, a 4 year old girl was mauled to death by her family's Chesapeake (the same dogs I had growing up). It wasn't reported in the papers.

There are standards by which the AKC determines a dog to legitimately be a pitbull.

No there aren't. The AKC does not recognize the APBT. They do, however register Staffies. There is the UKC, which will register APBT's, however, many of these dogs are dual-registered..as a Staffie with the AKC, and as an APBT with the UKC.

I happen to own a dog which is predominantly an American Staffordshire Terrier - one of the types that is refered to as a pitbull. I have to say, this dog is the most well adjusted and good natured creatures I have ever encountered - not only to humans but to other dogs, cats and even ducks.

This is indicative of the breed. They were originally bred for dog fighting, however, a dog that bites is handler generally isn't very popular. The goal was a dog which would fight well, yet obey humans obove all else. There is a tendency towards dog aggression, however that varies with individual dogs, the breeder, and how they have been trained.

Even after having suffered abuse as a young dog at the hands of a former owner this dog is remarkably well adjusted and affectionate and completely non-aggressive.

Which is why it is so remarkable that there aren't more 'pitbull' attacks. These dogs have been subjected to some of the worst cases of abuse that are seen (along with other 'guard' dogs, such as rotties and dobies), that generally aren't inflicted as often with the same severity on other, more popular/expensive breeds.

also say that I have known several other pit bulls and not a one of them has shown any aggression toward humans or other animals.

An aggressive pitbull is a nasty thing, but generally they have been taught that. There are, when you get into major centres, some very, very aggressive dogs. Some of them are biting and snarling at a few weeks old. THAT is genetic, and, IMHO, a form of mental illness, and not indicative of the breed as a whole.

From my experience working at the shelter, I can tell you that the vast majority of pitbulls we recieved were not people aggressive. They are wonderfull with children (remember the show, 'Little Rascals'? That was a pitbull), and are amazingly obedient (Hellen Keller's guide dog was a pitbull).

From what I've seen, the most aggressive dogs are American Eskimos. Not big, but nasty. Many little dogs are, because they are permitted to behave in a way that no bigger dog would ever been allowed to behave in. Also, German Shepards can be quite nasty, and if you get a bite from a retriever, it will most likely be the worst bite you will ever receive.

ETA: I do, however, think that there are some breeds of dogs, notably Presa Canario's, that are quite nasty, and that people should be extremely careful about.

LordoftheLeftHand

24th June 2005, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Jas
Very true. The majority of people cannot distinguish a pitbull from other dogs. For evidence of this, check out this online quiz. (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html)

Many of the people in the shelter I was at, and everyone at City Animals Services, failed. Most people refer to any intimidating dog they see as a 'pitbull'.

I'm embarrassed to say it took me 3 tries to find the pit bull and I have owned a few.

I sure a pit bull is as likely to attack someone as any other breed. But because they are so powerful, a "mean" pit bull is more dangerous than a "mean" tea cup poodle.

LLH

edited for format

DragonLady

24th June 2005, 01:08 PM

Much to my shame, I flunked the quiz something terrible. :o

The only excuse I can offer is I never owned one. Still...I would think I'd be able to identify one if it was headed my way. :(

IllegalArgument

24th June 2005, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
Much to my shame, I flunked the quiz something terrible. :o

The only excuse I can offer is I never owned one. Still...I would think I'd be able to identify one if it was headed my way. :(

I did really bad, took 6-7 tries. Never owned a PB though.

Jas

24th June 2005, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by LordoftheLeftHand
I sure a pit bull is as likely to attack someone as any other breed. But because they are so powerful, a "mean" pit bull is more dangerous than a "mean" tea cup poodle.

I would say that a pitbull is less likely to attack than most breeds, because they were originally bred to not be human aggressive. But yes, obviously a mean pitbull is a Very Bad Thing.

LostAngeles

24th June 2005, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
Yes, I see the comment now. And re-reading, I see she is married. Her husband and other children moved to Oregon, leaving her, the boy & the dogs with a plan to move later.

I don't know how I would've acted in her place. I keep thinking I would've stayed in the basement with the boy...but for how long? The boy had already been bitten once, but maybe Mom thought he willfully provoked it?

My son was bitten by a fox terrior we used to have. I wanted to put it down right then, but we gave it away to a friend who had no children instead. But one day we were visiting, and my son tried to pet the dog -and it bit him again. But until then, I never imagined that it would. I figured he provoked it somehow the first time, and that both boy and dog learned something the hard way. Now, I know that isn't true -once a dog bites, it just goes right on biting. And now we have a hard-and-fast rule that if a dog bites anyone we will have it put down or kill it ourselves if we must -by whatever means neccesary. If I go to prison because I was forced to kill a vicious 150 lb mutt with a shovel, well, so be it. Of course, I do whatever I can to make sure such a terrible situation will never occur.

Honestly, I see nothing but victims. I think the dogs were so far out of control she had no real choices. If she killed them, she faced charges -and probably her husband's wrath. If she took the boy with her, she had to lead him through the house, past the dogs -an untenable situation, considering they already viewed the boy as a potential target or worse -prey. She couldn't stay in the basement with him forever. They were both going to have to eat, sleep...use the bathroom. And if she honestly believed the dogs were only aggressive because they were trying to mate, then she saw the situation as temporary and thought it would work itself out in time.

The real criminals here are the dogs.

OK, firstly, the whole putting down a biting dog. Fox terriers don't look that big. In fact, judging from some of the pictures I'm looking at, I've got a cat that's almost as big as one of those.

When a cat gets aggressive, we hose the sucker down. The spray bottle or the squirt gun comes out. We condition it to not behave that way. Is there an actual reason punishment doesn't work on dogs, but positive reinforcement does? I'm serious, I don't know that much about dogs. I keep trying to pet them like cats.

Secondly, my Ridley bites all the time. It happens when he gets too excited during playing or too eager when he's suckling on my earlobe. He never bites down enough to break skin, but he still bites and claws. Is this ok because cats are smaller and tend not to attack out of the blue like a dog can?

Thirdly, she could have taken the dogs to the vet and had them put down. There's generally animal control services that would have been happy to show up, tranq 'em, and then cart them off for euthanasia.

Lastly, how did she have these big dogs in a house with a basement and NOT HAVE ISOLATED THEM IN THE YARD. She's an irresponsible dog owner and an irresponsible mother, I'm sorry to say.

DragonLady

24th June 2005, 03:40 PM

Fox terriers don't look that big.

They're not. Ours was a mix, and about knee-high to me. Nevertheless, the first time he bit he drew blood. Mind you, it was right outta the blue -up 'till then, the dog was a loving, spoiled member of the family.

Is there an actual reason punishment doesn't work on dogs, but positive reinforcement does?

Punishment does work with dogs, but only if it's immediate. And any animal will defend itself if it feels threatened. So smacking a dog that bites with a newspaper or grabbing it by the collar to try to bring it under control is putting yourself in danger.

Is this ok because cats are smaller and tend not to attack out of the blue like a dog can?

I have cats that scratch and bite a bit, too. We tend to punish them by physically removing them to the laundry room, although we have also spritzed them with a bit of water. Either way, the cats can be pretty mean, just like dogs. But they're not really capable of the vast amount of damage. A cat might give a nasty bite or multiple scratches, but a dog can remove an entire hand.

Thirdly, she could have taken the dogs to the vet and had them put down.

Could she? Let's think about that for a moment.

There are two dogs. One is in heat. Both are suddenly very territorial and mean. And both are big enough to kill a twelve-year-old boy.

Mom is home alone with a twelve-year-old who apparently doesn't listen very well. Her husband & the rest of the family are in Oregon.

How, exactly, was she going to get those dogs into crates, into the car, and to the vet's office? I can't even lift my german shepherd. I certainly can't lift shepherd + crate. She couldn't drive the car with two vicious dogs loose in it. And even if she could, she would've had to leave the boy alone in the house while she did. And if she'd gotten in a car accident, we'd still be having this conversation, 'though the details would be a bit different.

There's generally animal control services that would have been happy to show up, tranq 'em, and then cart them off for euthanasia.

Out where I am, that isn't true. Animal control charges $100.00 to pick up a stray that has wandered into a yard here. That's a nice, fluffy, cuddly stray that's no trouble. They won't show up to deal with YOUR problem animal at all -getting rid of an animal that has caused damages or bitten someone is your problem. I don't even think they give advice for how to do it. But if you resort to something they think is cruel, they will arrest you and prosecute you.

Lastly, how did she have these big dogs in a house with a basement and NOT HAVE ISOLATED THEM IN THE YARD.

Did she have a yard?

Perhaps she felt she would be endangering other people that way? I think she thought that by keeping the dogs and the boy seperate while the female was in heat she would avoid problems.

Jas

24th June 2005, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady

And.... I realize I'm not being fair to the woman this topic is about. She couldn't poison the dogs.

She could have gone to the vet to have them euthanized. She could have surrendered them to the animal shelter, which might have euthanized them. she could have called a pitbull rescue group. she had LOTS of options.
And she couldn't take her son past them out of the house -that would've been endangering the child, too. But it's not endagering them to live there?

I think she probably did the best thing she could under the circumstances, short of calling someone (who would you call? Animal control? A pest removal service? The AKC?) to come remove them. :(

Why didn't she call someone?!?

Jas

24th June 2005, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
Now, I know that isn't true -once a dog bites, it just goes right on biting.

90% of the time, this is the case. Once they lose 'bite inhibition', it's gone.

I think the dogs were so far out of control she had no real choices. If she killed them, she faced charges -and probably her husband's wrath.

Husband's wrath, I don't know about. But when has anyone ever been charged for taking the dog to the vet and euthanizing them? Or killing them in a humane method? Rancher's do it all the time.

If she took the boy with her, she had to lead him through the house, past the dogs -an untenable situation, considering they already viewed the boy as a potential target or worse -prey.

Then why have the dogs in the house?

nd if she honestly believed the dogs were only aggressive because they were trying to mate, then she saw the situation as temporary and thought it would work itself out in time.

Then why not have the animals altered? There's a couple reasons why someone would breed a deliberately aggressive animal, and none of them are good. Even if they're only aggressive when mating, why not fix them and be done with the problem? Why have them in a house with a child?

The real criminals here are the dogs.

How? Dogs can't reason. This woman had analtered dogs in her house that obviously no one had taken the time to train properly. They were not fixed when they should have been, and not euthanized when it was obvious that they were aggressive.

She was deliberately breeding dogs that she knew to be aggressive, and keeping them in the house with her son. How does this make the dogs themselves criminal?

Jas

24th June 2005, 04:04 PM

A really wierd double post

LostAngeles

24th June 2005, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Jas
Many vets make housecalls. Did this not happen in SF? Where they had the horrific Presa Canario maulings? I'm pretty sure that if you called a vet, the local shelter, or animal services, and said "I have two aggressive unneutered dogs in my house and am fearing for the life of my son", I GUARANTEE that something would have been done.

I

Did she have a yard?

Perhaps she felt she would be endangering other people that way? I think she thought that by keeping the dogs and the boy seperate while the female was in heat she would avoid problems. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm presuming she had a yard. Having a house with big animals would suggest that a yard would have been in order, but then it's a presumption.

Like Jas said, calling animal control and saying, "Hey, I've got two dangerous animals here that need to be put down," should get them off their duffs and out there pretty damn quick. And if they don't, I wouldn't imagine a jury convicting you on a cruelty to animals charge.

But thanks for your other answers, DragonLady. I didn't know that about dogs.

DragonLady

24th June 2005, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Jas
She could have gone to the vet to have them euthanized. She could have surrendered them to the animal shelter, which might have euthanized them. she could have called a pitbull rescue group. she had LOTS of options.

But you can only think of three?

See my post above, and tell me exactly HOW she was going to get two SUDDENLY vicious dogs to the vet?

I don't think she realized the extent of the danger. I think she saw it the way I did with the fox terrior -that it was a temporary, freak situation that would fix itself when the female was no longer in heat. I don't think she considered them permanently dangerous, any more than I did with my little dog. After I got over the initial shock and anger, I thought giving it away would be a fine solution. Only experience has taught me otherwise. :o

But it's not endagering them to live there?

If the dogs were not dangerous before that day, then why would she see them as being such a terrible risk then? I'm sure she probably felt that as long as the boy & the dogs were seperated, there was no undue risk. Apparently they had never bitten before; they were family dogs. She suddenly found herself alone, dealing with a situation she did not understand the severity of. But that does not make her a criminal.

Why didn't she call someone?!?

First, we don't know that she didn't. She might've been on the phone all morning, but no one would come.

Hubby couldn't just suddenly drive back from Oregon.

Maybe she had no other family.

My "local" vet does not make housecalls out here.

My county's animal control officer comes out once a week -and it's $100.00 per animal to pick up the strays people dump here (I'm out in the country). If no one has money, they leave the dogs to be hit by cars, starve to death, or whatever. I've posted about it before on this very forum.

Why would a rescue group want two biting animals? If they're trying to rescue them, wouldn't they be more likely to take friendly animals that had a chance of being rescued?

Maybe she could've called the police, but what would they have done? Here, they would've referred her to animal control...see above.

And this is assuming she understood the danger the dogs posed. I'm not convinced she did. Again, because of my own experiences of underestimating the possible dangers.

Lisa Simpson

24th June 2005, 04:16 PM

She lives in San Francisco. I've watched Animal Cops-San Francisco (yes, I admit it) and they come out for any animal emergency. From their website:

http://www.sfgov.org/site/acc_index.asp?id=4434

Uniformed trained Deputy Animal Control Officers conduct the following field services.

* Patrol throughout the City on a daily basis.
* Respond to animal-related emergencies.
* Impound dogs at large and rescue animals in distress.
* Enforce all animal control laws and investigate reports of animal abuse.
* Provide 24 hour service for picking up seriously sick or injured strays and bringing them to veterinarians for emergency treatment.
* Respond to other City, State and Federal agencies" requests for animal care and control services.

* Pick up dead strays and wildlife

I think calling them up and saying "I'm afraid for mine and my son's safetly would qualify as an emergency.

DragonLady

24th June 2005, 04:19 PM

She was deliberately breeding dogs that she knew to be aggressive, and keeping them in the house with her son. How does this make the dogs themselves criminal?

Was she deliberatly breeding them? I rather had the impression she just failed to get them fixed?

So far as the dogs being criminal...no; you're right. They don't reason. They don't have malicious intent. My comment was meant that they -and they alone- posed the threat to her son.

And I'm not so sure about the lack of training, either. My Dad's lab was well trained. He was never a problem while he was in Dad's care. It was only when his environment changed -when he came to my house- that he became such a pain in the rear. When Dad returned, he settled right down again.

Which just further leads me to believe that she did not recognize the menace these dogs could be.

Jas

24th June 2005, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
How, exactly, was she going to get those dogs into crates, into the car, and to the vet's office? I can't even lift my german shepherd. I certainly can't lift shepherd + crate. She couldn't drive the car with two vicious dogs loose in it. And even if she could, she would've had to leave the boy alone in the house while she did. And if she'd gotten in a car accident, we'd still be having this conversation, 'though the details would be a bit different.

Many vets make housecalls. Did this not happen in SF? Where they had the horrific Presa Canario maulings? I'm pretty sure that if you called a vet, the local shelter, or animal services, and said "I have two aggressive unneutered dogs in my house and am fearing for the life of my son", I GUARANTEE that something would have been done.

Out where I am, that isn't true. Animal control charges $100.00 to pick up a stray that has wandered into a yard here. That's a nice, fluffy, cuddly stray that's no trouble. They won't show up to deal with YOUR problem animal at all -getting rid of an animal that has caused damages or bitten someone is your problem. I don't even think they give advice for how to do it. But if you resort to something they think is cruel, they will arrest you and prosecute you.

I have a really hard time believing this. Generally the owners of the dog are the ones who pay the fine. Most cities (mine included), derive all funding for their programs from fines levied against owners, and dog licensing fees.

Did she have a yard?

Perhaps she felt she would be endangering other people that way? I think she thought that by keeping the dogs and the boy seperate while the female was in heat she would avoid problems.

So she was breeding dogs, yet didn't even have a yard for them? And while she felt that she might be endangering her neighbors, it didn't occur to her that she was endangering the boy?

DragonLady

24th June 2005, 04:27 PM

Okay, Lisa Simpson, I concede she could've called animal control in her area.

But I'm still not so sure she believed she had reason to. Can anyone show me where the dogs had any history of being violent before she & her son were left alone to deal with them?

Jas

24th June 2005, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
But you can only think of three?

In 30 seconds. If you really want me to post that long of a list, what would the point be?

See my post above, and tell me exactly HOW she was going to get two SUDDENLY vicious dogs to the vet?

Could have called a friend, could have called the vet and asked for help, could have left the house and called the police.

I don't think she realized the extent of the danger.

Agreed.

If the dogs were not dangerous before that day, then why would she see them as being such a terrible risk then? I'm sure she probably felt that as long as the boy & the dogs were seperated, there was no undue risk.

But their behaviour was severe enough to lock her kid in the basement?

First, we don't know that she didn't. She might've been on the phone all morning, but no one would come.

Possibly, but that would most likely have been taken into consideration by the court.

My "local" vet does not make housecalls out here.
Many will, in an emergency situation. Again, in SF, there are hundreds of vets

Why would a rescue group want two biting animals? If they're trying to rescue them, wouldn't they be more likely to take friendly animals that had a chance of being rescued?

Trust me, they take them rescue groups are different than shelters). And the so-called "kill" shelters are open admission..no animals is EVER refused.

And this is assuming she understood the danger the dogs posed. I'm not convinced she did. Again, because of my own experiences of underestimating the possible dangers.

Then why was she breeding animals?

Lisa Simpson

24th June 2005, 04:35 PM

The dog was aggressive with the kid earlier in the day, so yeah, she had a pretty good idea that the dog was trouble. Otherwise, she wouldn't have "locked" the kid in the basement.

Jas

24th June 2005, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
Was she deliberatly breeding them? I rather had the impression she just failed to get them fixed?

Then she is the most amazingly stupid woman alive if she didn't think they would breed. Ownership of an animal is a right, not priviledge, and if she were in any way responsible, they would have been fixed.

She was breeding aggressive dogs. End of story.

And I'm not so sure about the lack of training, either. My Dad's lab was well trained. He was never a problem while he was in Dad's care. It was only when his environment changed -when he came to my house- that he became such a pain in the rear. When Dad returned, he settled right down again.

If the dogs were meant to be in the same house as her son, and didn't listen to all members of the household, then they were poorly trained.

DragonLady

24th June 2005, 04:44 PM

Out where I am, that isn't true. Animal control charges $100.00 to pick up a stray that has wandered into a yard here. That's a nice, fluffy, cuddly stray that's no trouble. They won't show up to deal with YOUR problem animal at all -getting rid of an animal that has caused damages or bitten someone is your problem. I don't even think they give advice for how to do it. But if you resort to something they think is cruel, they will arrest you and prosecute you.

I have a really hard time believing this. Generally the owners of the dog are the ones who pay the fine. Most cities (mine included), derive all funding for their programs from fines levied against owners, and dog licensing fees.

This information comes to me second-hand.

The manager of the gas station two miles up the road from me told me a couple of years ago they no longer call animal control because they had started charging the station for picking up the animals that are dumped there. Someone dumps a dog or a cat or a litter of kittens almost daily.

She told me they fired an employee for putting out a pan of water for a dog; because they felt it was encouraging the animal to hang around -and they didn't want to pay to have it picked up on their property.

Maybe it was just b.s...I've only had to call them once -about 3 years ago, and it was no problem then. But that was apparently before they decided it wasn't worth the l-o-n-g drive (almost 100 miles).

So she was breeding dogs, yet didn't even have a yard for them? And while she felt that she might be endangering her neighbors, it didn't occur to her that she was endangering the boy? [/B]

Again, was she deliberatly breeding the dogs? Or did she just fail to get them fixed? Out here, a lot of people can't afford to have the animals neutered, so they end up with unwanted puppies...which they dump at the gas station....

It's a real mess. :(

DragonLady

24th June 2005, 04:53 PM

Then she is the most amazingly stupid woman alive if she didn't think they would breed. Ownership of an animal is a right, not priviledge, and if she were in any way responsible, they would have been fixed.

I agree it's stupid to think they wouldn't breed. Although...again, to play Devil's advocate, I once adopted a dog I was assured had been spayed. She wasn't. :(

Nevertheless, we don't prosecute people for breeding animals. Of any kind.

If the dogs were meant to be in the same house as her son, and didn't listen to all members of the household, then they were poorly trained.

Actually...I'm inclined to agree with you, here.

The boy was twelve, and should've known how to take control of the dogs if the situation was warranted. (And if he was physically capable).

But as we've seen, the boy wasn't much for obeying his own self....

billydkid

24th June 2005, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I am not convinced that there are necessarily breeds of dogs that are inherently more aggressive than others. I'm sure there's a lot to "There are no bad dogs, only bad owners." OTOH, an aggressive Wired Haired Dachsund is not much of a threat to kill old Aunt Millie if she goes out of control.

So even it were true that pitbulls were, on the average, _less_ aggressive than other breeds, it can still be a more dangerous breed.

There are certainly bad individual dogs as well as genetic strains which are dangerous. I have to say I was attacked by a large German Sheppard as a child and had adults not been nearby I would have been badly hurt or killed. The owner was a breeder and continued to breed that same bloodline of aggresive dangerous dogs. That line should have been stamped out at the first sign of aggression. I have own German Sheppards since then - one was gigantic, around 150 pounds - but these dogs were wonderful animals. Had they been aggressive they would have been truly dangerous. I guess the moral is - breed specific legislation misses the mark. It is not a particular breed that is dangerous, but particular bloodlines and individual dogs. I have no qualms about putting down any aggressive dog.

Roadtoad

24th June 2005, 08:24 PM

I've been following this one for a while, now.

In my experience, from the friends I've had who've had pit bulls, (the real deal), the biggest threat you have from a well trained, well treated pit is you'll get licked to death. They're loving, loyal, and friendly to a fault.

When I worked for our local rendering company as a driver, I lost track of the number of pits I found that had been put down. One of the more tragic ones had a 30 lb. weight attached by a chain to his neck, supposedly, (as near as anyone could figure out), to help make the poor dog "stronger." Actually, from what we found out later, it put an incredible strain on the poor animal's heart and it killed him. Most of the pits we got were from animal shelters, and they were either simply not wanted, or they'd become agressive.

MOST dogs I know of are agressive. When I was growing up, we had a dachshund named Schnitzel, a wonderful friend, but he could be an agressive little mutt, particularly when he was cornered. (He also, unfortunately, had a habit of letting you know he needed outside. My brother, sister, and I had scheduled times to take him out for a walk, and if you were late, he'd leave you a "gift" in your bedroom. I learned to keep my electric guitar up off the floor.) Pits are no different. You actually have to teach them to become mean, and this I learned from a woman who once lived next door and trained them for a living.

As to the "mother's" decision to not have her dogs fixed: She was and is an idiot. You don't stick your kid in the basement for the benefit of the damned dogs! And if you're going to breed them for fun and profit, take the necessary precautions so it can be done with some security. Any male dog, while a female is in estrus, is going to be agressive. It's their nature. Not taking that into account is stupid and, as we've seen here, dangerous.

Frankly, I think she's one of those idiot women who wanted her child to see "the miracle of life(!)" and decided she didn't want to have them fixed until mama dog had a litter. I lost track after the first week of working at the rendering plant just how many "miracles" we stuck in the incinerator, because some dope of a parent insisted.

DragonLady

25th June 2005, 01:08 AM

As to the "mother's" decision to not have her dogs fixed: She was and is an idiot. You don't stick your kid in the basement for the benefit of the damned dogs! And if you're going to breed them for fun and profit, take the necessary precautions so it can be done with some security. Any male dog, while a female is in estrus, is going to be agressive. It's their nature. Not taking that into account is stupid and, as we've seen here, dangerous.

Having thought this over for the better part of the day, I think I have to stick by my defense of Mom.

I don't believe her choices or actions were the very best possible. But I think for the most part she was acting reasonably and trying to be responsible.

I was just thinking about the day my son was bitten. When it happened, I was on the phone, with my back turned to both boy & dog. When I heard the growl, I was surprised, and turned around just to see the boy with a bloody finger. I scooped him up, washed the hand, then put the boy in his room & closed the door.

That's right...I put the boy in his room, and left the dog free.

Why?

Well...I guess it just seemed the most reasonable course under the circumstances. I wanted to seperate them. The dog usually didn't spend much time in the boy's room. The boy had things he could do there while I sorted out what to do next. The dog didn't pose a threat to me. The boy needed to calm down and feel safe.... The reasons seem to go on and on. But honestly, I doubt I thought about any of those things at the time. I just did what seemed right.

Next, I didn't call animal control. Or the vet. Or a neighbor with a shotgun. I didn't kick the dog across the room or try to drown it in the kitchen sink. I called my husband at work. We discussed the situation, and agreed putting the dog down might be the only solution.

I remember I was crying -both angry and sad. I loved that dog and couldn't bear thinking of it being killed. But I love my son more, and couldn't tolerate an animal biting him.

Then my friend offered to take him, and that seemed like the best solution for everyone.

The fact is, we can argue this woman's options all day long. We can come up with hundreds of what-if's and why-nots...but in the end, I believe she did what seemed reasonable and right at the time.

We don't know her financial status -whether she could've afforded a housecall by a vet or a fine from animal control. We don't know if she had a car or knew anyone in town...we don't even know if she had a phone. Since they were moving, it's quite possible there wasn't a stick of furniture or a lettuce leaf anywhere in the house. And for all we know, the basement was the kid's bedroom.

She may have had the dogs for years, and just wasn't ready or able to admit they were far more than she was able to handle. She may have caught the boy teasing them or provoking them in some way, and thought the dogs were just defending themselves.

We will never know, of course. But just looking at the facts (as they've been presented), I believe she handled the emergency in the way that seemed best under her circumstances.

As to the way those circumstances came about (having the dogs in the first place, breeding them, lack of training, etc), there are simply too many unknowns. We can't know whether they were mean before, or whether they were loving animals until one day something changed. We can't know whether the breeding was accidental or purposeful. We can't know how the dogs were trained or by who. So whatever happened up 'till the day of the mauling is rather irrelevant. What counts is how she handled it then. And I think she took the most important steps -isolating the boy from the dogs, and attempting to prevent further harm.

And that doesn't make her a criminal, by any stretch of the imagination.

And to address this point seperatly:

Any male dog, while a female is in estrus, is going to be agressive.

That has NEVER been my experience. I've never once seen a dog go from being friendly and easy-going to aggressive and nasty just because a bitch in heat was anywhere near. I'm not saying it doesn't happen; just that despite being around a LOT of dogs -including mating pairs, I've never seen it.

And if I had ever decided to start breeding dogs, I sincerly doubt I would've given that possibility any consideration.

At least...not before this thread. ;)

schplurg

25th June 2005, 03:34 AM

DragonLady:
I don't believe her choices or actions were the very best possible. But I think for the most part she was acting reasonably and trying to be responsible.
I think that the first sentence is a severe understatement. The second.....total bull$#!t

My arguement:
From This Article (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/061205_nw_pit_bull.html)

"My younger dog (Ella) was in heat and anyone who came near her, Rex saw as a threat."
An admission that the dog was acting aggressive. Remember the child had been bitten earlier that very day.

"I put him down there, with a shovel on the door," Faibish said in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. "And I told him: `Stay down there until I come back.' Typical Nicky, he wouldn't listen to me."
More admission that the situation was dangerous. Also, she "locked" her kid in the basement (from the outside, no less) because he "typically" didn't listen. She was right.

"It was Nicky's time to go. When you're born, you're destined to go, and this was his time."
Just weird. She was upset, I'll let that one go.

"I'm not mad at my dogs," Faibish said. "I just love them to death."
Apparently. She keeps a female dog in heat inside her home. They bleed during this time ya know? Yuck! The male, who is showing signs of aggression to anyone who comes near the female, is also indoors. This does not sound like a woman who was left with 'her husbands dogs' and didn't know what to do. Sounds like she was expecting them to mate, otherwise she would have seperated the dogs.

"I told them I wanted him put down," she said. "I think of Rex as someone who ... murdered my child."

My conclusions from reading 4 different articles, and from only taking into consideration her own quotes:

This woman loves her dogs to death and considers them people (I kinda consider my dog a person too though, and better than many). She half-assed locked her kid in a room using a shovel. Obviously she knew the kid wouldn't listen to her and would get out of the room or she wouldn't have felt a need to lock him in from the outside. She could have, instead, locked up the dogs. Nowhere does she claim she was afraid of them or couldn't handle them. Negligence.

She obviously wasn't bothered by the child being bitten earlier, as it says in the article that she went to run errands while the boy was in the basement...not to consult with a vet, not to find help with the dogs. She left her son alone in the house with at least one proven aggressive dog, knowing he would try to get out of the basement (hence the shovel). Negligence.

I believe she was breeding the dogs and was not as ignorant as her defenders are claiming. I think she was negligent. She inconvenienced the child rather than the dogs by not locking them up instead. At no time does she say she herself felt threatened by the animals and was afraid to lead the kid past them and out of the house, or that she couldn't have locked up the dogs instead. I mean come on, be serious here! That's the lamest excuse of all the ones I've read here, and some have been pretty laughable. If that were true, then shouldn't she have gotten help instead of "running errands"? Puh-leeeze!

One more quote, not from the mother though:
Art Austin, neighbor: "I heard her say it was all her fault.

I agree. Child endangerment? Hell yes, if ever there was a case for it. Your excuses for her are pathetic and I can't believe you feel she acted reasonably and responsible.

varwoche

25th June 2005, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Jas
I would say that a pitbull is less likely to attack than most breeds, because they were originally bred to not be human aggressive. Evidence?

billydkid

25th June 2005, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by varwoche
Evidence?

It is one of the traits deliberately breed into pitbulls when they were developed for fighting - dog aggressive/people friendly. They have not legitimately been breed for fighting in most countries for many years and it is only particular bloodlines that still carry that inclination. Originally bred from bulldogs and terriers they carry the trait to hold on once they grab something in just the way bulldogs were meant to hold onto the bulls nose and thus immobilize it. It is easy to find breeding information about pits on the web and it is specifically mentioned that, though bred for dog fighting they were also bred not to be human aggresive. It is another story with some new bloodlines of pitbulls which were developed by inner city drug traffickers and such. These dogs are deliberately bred to be dangerous. I think this practice should be illegal.

I find dog fighting utterly repulsive, but there are many breeds originally bred for that purpose besides the pitbull - that wrinkley chinese dog I forget the name, for example. It is worth noting that "serious" dog fighters (in countries where it is sanctioned) do not fight their dogs to the death. It is generally until submission or until one is clearly losing. They have large investments in these animals and do not casually let them be killed. Typically though, non-aggressive dogs are killed because they have no value. Like I said, I think animal fighting is a horrible practice. I feel that all domesticated animals should be treat with respect and kindness. I do think that no aggressive companion animal should be tolerated and no dog that bites should be kept. Nobody should have to be afraid of any pet. I would not keep a dog with any aggressive tendency.

Roadtoad

25th June 2005, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by schplurg
I think that the first sentence is a severe understatement. The second.....total bull$#!t

I agree. Child endangerment? Hell yes, if ever there was a case for it. Your excuses for her are pathetic and I can't believe you feel she acted reasonably and responsible.

There was NOTHING reasonable or responsible in the "mother's" actions. She's an irresponsible idiot. And if I were the DA, I'd try and go for a far more serious charge. Murder One, if I could make it stick.

CFLarsen

25th June 2005, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by billydkid
It is one of the traits deliberately breed into pitbulls when they were developed for fighting - dog aggressive/people friendly.
...
It is easy to find breeding information about pits on the web and it is specifically mentioned that, though bred for dog fighting they were also bred not to be human aggresive.

Originally posted by Jas
I would say that a pitbull is less likely to attack than most breeds, because they were originally bred to not be human aggressive.

I would say that the breeders have failed. Pitbulls are by far the number one dog breed responsible for fatalities. (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/mmwr/wk/mm4621.pdf)

varwoche

25th June 2005, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by billydkid
It is one of the traits deliberately breed into pitbulls when they were developed for fighting - dog aggressive/people friendly. I'm familiar with the breed's history and my request stands. I'd like to see actual evidence supporting the assertion that...
a pitbull is less likely to attack than most breeds

DragonLady

25th June 2005, 01:33 PM

Well, I agree to disagree with y'all. I must say I appreciate that this topic hasn't degenerated into a name-calling mess. It's certainly an emotional issue.

No matter what, I feel very much for the people involved. Negligent or not, I don't think anyone deserves to lose a child.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the DA proceeds, and how the courts decide it...if it goes that far.

Jas

27th June 2005, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
This information comes to me second-hand.

The manager of the gas station two miles up the road from me told me a couple of years ago they no longer call animal control because they had started charging the station for picking up the animals that are dumped there. Someone dumps a dog or a cat or a litter of kittens almost daily.

Then it is entirely possibly that they are charging that gas station, and that gas station only, due to the high number of animals dumped there. That do0esn't mean that they charge everyone, or that any other AS departments charge that fee for strays.

Again, was she deliberatly breeding the dogs? Or did she just fail to get them fixed? Out here, a lot of people can't afford to have the animals neutered, so they end up with unwanted puppies...which they dump at the gas station....

IF you can't afford to fix the animal, then you shoudln't have an animal.

Pets are a responsibility, and as such, are a priviledge, not a right. Would you say the same thing if she couldn't afford to feed them?

Animals are expensive. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that they recieve proper veterinary care (which includes surgical alteration in the case of pets). If you can't afford to fix the animals, then you shouldn't have them.

Maybe if people were forced to take responsibility for the unwanted offspring of their un-fixed animals, for the 7-25 years of their life, then maybe they would start to act responsibly.

It's a real mess. :(

I agree.

Jas

27th June 2005, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
Next, I didn't call animal control. Or the vet. Or a neighbor with a shotgun. I didn't kick the dog across the room or try to drown it in the kitchen sink. I called my husband at work. We discussed the situation, and agreed putting the dog down might be the only solution.

I remember I was crying -both angry and sad. I loved that dog and couldn't bear thinking of it being killed. But I love my son more, and couldn't tolerate an animal biting him.

Was there any chance that this dog would have killed your son though?

We don't know her financial status -whether she could've afforded a housecall by a vet or a fine from animal control. We don't know if she had a car or knew anyone in town...we don't even know if she had a phone.

Again, that's part of the responsibility of having animals.

So whatever happened up 'till the day of the mauling is rather irrelevant. What counts is how she handled it then.

No, it is relevant. It shows what sort of owner she was.

I've never once seen a dog go from being friendly and easy-going to aggressive and nasty just because a bitch in heat was anywhere near. I'm not saying it doesn't happen; just that despite being around a LOT of dogs -including mating pairs, I've never seen it.

And if I had ever decided to start breeding dogs, I sincerly doubt I would've given that possibility any consideration.

It actually is fairly common. When unaltered animals are around each other (specifically, a female in heat), in many cases, they become much more territorial, sometimes aggressive. It really depends on the individual animal.

crimresearch

27th June 2005, 02:08 PM

"So whatever happened up 'till the day of the mauling is rather irrelevant. What counts is how she handled it then."

What happened before this occured can be seen in hindsight to have been an integral part of causing the problem, but you are right...after someone did a terrible job raising the dog, and other less than ideal actions compounded the problem, this woman was left in a very predictable situation that she couldn't have undone, once events were set into motion.

Jas

27th June 2005, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by varwoche
Evidence?

One article. (http://www.austinlostpets.com/kidskorner/2October/pitbull.htm)

And this woman (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com) runs a fairly decent site.

And of course, you can always look at the AKC site.

Jas

27th June 2005, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I would say that the breeders have failed. Pitbulls are by far the number one dog breed responsible for fatalities. (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/mmwr/wk/mm4621.pdf)

That's a pretty interesting report.

Especially since the AKC does not recognize a breed known a pitbull. Would they not at least list a dog which is a recognizable breed, rather than one that seems to respond to a dozen different descriptions? Also, the report refers to fatalities, not bite statistics. In some jurisdictions, it is required by law to report dog bites from certain breeds, not others. Most people do not report bites from smaller dogs. While a bigger dog is more likely to cause a fatality, that in no way affects how liely it is to bite.

It also says that when a crossbred animal was involved in the attacks, that dogs breed was used only once. How did they determine breed? A crossbred animal is completely different than a purebred (ie. a sharpei x staffi), and it can be almost impossible to determine the parentage. Often people will cross pitti's with more aggressive breeds (such as sharpei's, in order to get a more obedient, aggressive dog).

I'm not denying that there are numerous unscrupulous individuals that breed and train pitbulls as attack dogs. I am saying that on the whole, the breed is extremely stable. Especially when one considers the extremely high number of abuse cases involving bully breeds, compared to those of more popular breeds

The same report also states that in more recent years, the rottweiler has been responsible for the majority of attacks, starting in 1993, which coincides with the breeds rise in popularity. This also coincides with how recognizable to breed became. Many people don't know the difference between a rotti and a pitbull.

A good source for this (and which also answers varwoche's question) is this Wikipedia article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_Bull)

You also might want to try out the quiz I posted earlier...most people cannot recognize a pitbull. At the shelter I worked at, we would send constables out to reports of 'vicious' pitbulls, and find Viszla's, bulldogs, even Puli's. Not very often were people referring to actual pitbulls.

As far as the pitbulls that came into the shelter (and this is personal experience, obviously the numbers will differ in different cities), we found that of the animals we identified as pitbulls/staffies, they were less likely to fail the temperment test, compared to rotties (I think this was due to barrier aggression, and the environment, but I digress), American Eskimoes, German Sheperds, and Sharpeis. In generally, they were quite tractable.

ETA: This essay (http://www.thedogplace.com/library/articles156.htm) , mentions quite a few problems with trying to blame one breed for the majority of dog bites.

crimresearch

27th June 2005, 02:51 PM

Conflating the number of fatalities with the trait of aggressiveness is specious, since it ignores the factor that so many aggressive dog attacks are not going to end with a fatality due to the size of various breeds.
Cocker Spaniels rarely kill people, but it does not follow that they are not an aggressive animal...

Taking into account the difference between innate aggression and dogs that are mis-trained to attack would also be a good thing to do.
For skeptics, that is.

Lisa Simpson

27th June 2005, 02:58 PM

From Dog Bite laws (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogsmostlikelytobite) this horrific story:

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictibility is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)

I guess the moral of the story is any dog can bite, maim or kill.

Jas

27th June 2005, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
Taking into account the difference between innate aggression and dogs that are mis-trained to attack would also be a good thing to do.
For skeptics, that is.

Very good point. In fact, one of the reasons that breed-specific bans fail, is that people just find another dog to train. That's one of the reasons why Sharpei's and Ridgebacks are becoming popular 'attack' dogs (aside from the fact that Sharpei's are pretty nasty animals), because there are no laws against them, and no laws currently being proposed.

Jas

27th June 2005, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson

I guess the moral of the story is any dog can bite, maim or kill.

Exactly, and demonizing one breed diminishes the real problem, which is irresponsible owners, and breeders.

Lisa Simpson

27th June 2005, 03:51 PM

Humane Society statement on Breed specific legislation (http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html)

varwoche

27th June 2005, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Jas
One article. (http://www.austinlostpets.com/kidskorner/2October/pitbull.htm)

And this woman (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com) runs a fairly decent site.

And of course, you can always look at the AKC site. Upon cursory review, I can't find anything in these links supporting your assertion that pit bulls are less likely to bite than other breeds. Can you cite specific text please?

Also, I'm not apt to assign a great deal of weight to a site run by a put bull fancier, unless the data is supported with external links to neuteral data source(s), or unless you can explain why it should be taken as a non-biased authority.

The fact that the pit bull is not a breed recognized by the AKC (http://www.akc.org/breeds/breeds_h.cfm) causes me to wonder if you're making stuff up here.

Jas

27th June 2005, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by varwoche
Upon cursory review, I can't find anything in these links supporting your assertion that pit bulls are less likely to bite than other breeds. Can you cite specific text please?

Also, I'm not apt to assign a great deal of weight to a site run by a put bull fancier, unless the data is supported with external links to neuteral data source(s), or unless you can explain why it should be taken as a non-biased authority.

From the first website:

In my opinion, Pit bulls are the least likely to be human aggressive. On the whole, you have to do a lot of work to make them aggressive to people.
--Sue Frisch, Dessin Animal Shelter manager

The scond website links into here:Sad Reality (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/sadreality.php) (warning, there are some graphic images on this site)

If you can find another breed that suffers this much abuse, please let me know. The vast majority of major dog abuse cases which we & other shelters prosecuted involved 'pitbull'-type dogs. These are the type of people that typically own them, and the vast majority of aggressive pitbulls come from this background. I'm surprised that there aren't more attacks from this breed. Do I think that unscrupulous people train pitbulls to attack? Of course I do. But it takes a lot more work to make a pitbull human aggressive, than it does, say, an American Eskimo.

I realize that the sites I linked to were actually quite light on the information. However, the wikipedia article that I linked to in another post, quite clearly stated that staffies tested higher on temperment tests than other breeds of dogs.

Also, in my experience at the animal shelter, 'pitbulls', on average, were more likely to pass their temperment evaluations, being much more tolerant of being pinched, poked, prodded, etc.

From the UKC website:The essential characteristics of the American Pit Bull Terrier are strength, confidence, and zest for life. This breed is eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children. Because most APBTs exhibit some level of dog aggression and because of its powerful physique, the APBT requires an owner who will carefully socialize and obedience train the dog. The breed's natural agility makes it one of the most capable canine climbers so good fencing is a must for this breed. The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work.

From pitbull breed characteristics. (http://www.ukcdogs.com/breeds/terriers/americanpitbullterrier.std.shtml)

From the CKC:
Staffordshire Bull Terrier (http://www.ckc.ca/Default.aspx?
tabid=73&Breed_Code=SSB) From the past history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the modern dog draws his character of indomitable courage, high intelligence, and tenacity. This, coupled with his affection for his friends, and children in particular; his off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes him the foremost all-purpose dog

Jas

27th June 2005, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by varwoche

The fact that the pit bull is not a breed recognized by the AKC (http://www.akc.org/breeds/breeds_h.cfm) causes me to wonder if you're making stuff up here.

In my response to CF Larson, I did state that the pitbull is not a breed recognized by the AKC

Especially since the AKC does not recognize a breed known a pitbull. Would they not at least list a dog which is a recognizable breed, rather than one that seems to respond to a dozen different descriptions?

ETA: I also stated earlier (on the first page of the thread:

The AKC does not recognize the APBT. They do, however register Staffies. There is the UKC, which will register APBT's, however, many of these dogs are dual-registered..as a Staffie with the AKC, and as an APBT with the UKC

Please take a moment or two to bother to read my psots rather than accuse me of making stuff up. On two separate posts, I claimed that the AKC did not register a breed refered to as a pitbull.

I worked and volunteered for an animal shelter for almost two years...I have a pretty good understanding of the temperment of 'pitbulls'.

I do, however, use the terms pitbulls and staffies interchangeably, so that may be where the confusion arises. I did, however, state much earlier that the breeds are often dual-registered with different dog clubs.

varwoche

27th June 2005, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Jas
In my response to CF Larson, I did state that the pitbull is not a breed recognized by the AKC OK. Why then did you reference the AKC to support your unsupported assertion?
Please take a moment or two to bother to read my psots rather than accuse me of making stuff up. On two separate posts, I claimed that the AKC did not register a breed refered to as a pitbull. Ditto my previous reply. I worked and volunteered for an animal shelter for almost two years...I have a pretty good understanding of the temperment of 'pitbulls'. You still have not supported a very specific, statistical assertion despite several requests.

Since you didn't cite text from the 2 links you provided, does this mean that these web sites in fact do not support your assertion?

Are you suggesting that your absolute statement is based on anecdotal experience? Seeing as I don't take the word of anonymous internet personnas, can you provide credible evidence for your specific, measurable assertion? (Third request, but who's counting.)

DragonLady

27th June 2005, 05:32 PM

Pets are a responsibility, and as such, are a priviledge, not a right. Would you say the same thing if she couldn't afford to feed them?

Animals are expensive. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that they recieve proper veterinary care (which includes surgical alteration in the case of pets). If you can't afford to fix the animals, then you shouldn't have them.

Maybe if people were forced to take responsibility for the unwanted offspring of their un-fixed animals, for the 7-25 years of their life, then maybe they would start to act responsibly.

Yes.

But!!! People's finances change; both up and down. And it's no easier to find a new home for a dog you can barely afford than it is to find a new home for your children if you're suddenly having trouble feeding them. And I don't remember anyone offering food stamps for or Aid for Dependant Pets.

I have a german shepherd I've had for seven years. When I got her, I owned a profitable store and had 5 times the income I do now. But I'm not about to give her up to some shelter or rescue group just because her dog food takes a bigger chunk out of the wallet every week. I'll keep her even if I become reduced to feeding her table scraps. Part of keeping an animal for their lifetime is that the animal fares for better or worse just as the people caring for them.

Was there any chance that this dog would have killed your son though?

Possibly. Even a small dog can sever arteries. Even a mild bite can become infected. I have a huge scar I got as a child because I fell as I was running from a dog I was playing with.

Sorry, folks. But part of life is the risk that you or someone will die at any moment, due to just about anything. Failing to take heroic measures to prevent it doesn't make anyone negligent.

Lisa Simpson

27th June 2005, 05:46 PM

It's almost impossible to find breed-specific dog bite info. I found this (http://ncrf2004.tripod.com/id4.html) site, but I don't know how legit the National Canine Research Foundation is.

PONTIAC MICHIGAN DOG BITE INCIDENT REPORTS 2000-2001

American Canine Foundation researched Pontiac Michigan's dog bite reports for 2000-2001. We found the highest percentage of bites involved children. Several breeds were involved in numerous reports. We divided the reports into two catagories. Level 1 Dogs that had nipped and scratched or bit once. Level 2 Dogs that had bitten the victim's several times causing stiches and /or servere injury. Because some of the reports are vague, have wrong address's and phone numbers the accuracy of some of the reports are questionable.

Level 1: Golden Retriever ~ 1 Lab ~ 4 Great Dane~1 Eskie~1 Beagle~6 Corgi~2 Rottweiler~4 Shepherd~2 Pit Bull~9 Husky~1 (attacked dog) Chihuahua~2 Hound~1 Shepherd~1 (attacked dog) Shar-Pei~2 Mixed Breeds~26 Cats~5 Possum~1 Bat~1 Unknown Breeds (strays)~12

Level 2: Chows~9 Shepherds~9 Pit Bulls~3 Shar-Pei~1 Rottweiler~6 Greyhound~1(killed cat) Akita~1 Collie~1 Bull Mastiff~2 Dalmation~1 Lab~1 Pointer~1 American Bulldog~1 Pit Bull~2 (attacked dog) Shepherd~3(killed dog) Rottweiler~4 (killed dog) Mixed Breeds~7

OHIO DOG BITE REPORTS 2001-2002

A Study was done in the state of Ohio, dog bite statisitcs (2001-2002) were obtained from 46 counties by Harry George (E.B.A.) for the American Canine Foundation (A.C.F.) to research. When comparing 2001-2002 to statistics from Ohio counties dating back to the early 80's it was found that the same breeds were responsible for reported dog bites with almost the same percentages. In Ohio in 1987 a breed restriction was place on the Pit Bull because of claims that it was vicious. When reviewing Ohio's dog bite statistics within a 20 year period it was found breed restrictions do nothing to reduce dog bites from specific breeds targeted. (2001-2002) Mixed Breeds ~ 34% Shepherds ~ 7% Labs ~ 7% Rottweilers ~ 6% Boxers ~ 4% Chows ~ 3% Pit Bulls ~ 2 %

CFLarsen

28th June 2005, 12:24 AM

Jas,

Look, it's all fine and dandy that an animal shelter manager has an opinion. And you're entitled to your opinion after having experience. And pitbulls may be abused more than other breeds. And pitbulls may not be an accepted breed by the AKC.

All this is beside the point. You still haven't provided evidence that pitbulls are less likely to attack than most breeds.

Let's see that evidence. If you have it, that is.

Jas

28th June 2005, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by varwoche
OK. Why then did you reference the AKC to support your unsupported assertion?

I did state that staffies and pitties were often duel registered. Was there not a listing for American Staffordshire Terrier?

Ditto my previous reply. You still have not supported a very specific, statistical assertion despite several requests.

From the link to the Wikipedia article I provided :

The American Canine Temperament Testing Association rates American Pit Bull Terriers in fourth place, with a 95% passing rate on temperament tests, as opposed to 77% for all breeds in general. Pit bull proponents claim that the aggressive personality traits present in some pit bulls (and many other dogs) can be subdued through proper training and owner supervision of the pit bull.

Since you didn't cite text from the 2 links you provided, does this mean that these web sites in fact do not support your assertion?

I did say that the first two links were light on the info, and then proceeded to quote from the UKC and CKC, which I will repeat, since you didn't read the first time:

The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable.

This, coupled with his affection for his friends, and children in particular; his off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes him the foremost all-purpose dog

Jas

28th June 2005, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
It's almost impossible to find breed-specific dog bite info. I found this (http://ncrf2004.tripod.com/id4.html) site, but I don't know how legit the National Canine Research Foundation is.

That's wierd that they're putting dog and cat attacks in the same category.

crimresearch

28th June 2005, 10:18 AM

Jas, Lisa, et al.
Thank you for going to the trouble to look up and share the informative and useful links and references on dog bites, temperament etc.

I wouldn't want you to get the impression that nobody reads and learns from such things around here.
:cool:

Jas

28th June 2005, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Jas,

Look, it's all fine and dandy that an animal shelter manager has an opinion. And you're entitled to your opinion after having experience. And pitbulls may be abused more than other breeds. And pitbulls may not be an accepted breed by the AKC.

All this is beside the point. You still haven't provided evidence that pitbulls are less likely to attack than most breeds.

Let's see that evidence. If you have it, that is.

ATTS (http://www.atts.org/stats1.html) , Which was referenced in the Wikipedia article I linked to earlier.

And, like I said...in temperment testing, the dogs identified as pitbulls, on average, were more likely to pass, and with higher marks, than other identifiable breeds (crossbreeds don't necessarily share traits with their parents, and can be almost impossible to identify, why is one of the biggest problems with the report you cited earlier).

Lisa Simpson

28th June 2005, 10:20 AM

From http://www.atts.org/statistics.html

Akita 420 306 114 72.9%
American Bulldog 116 95 21 81.9%
American Pit Bull Terrier 469 391 78 83.4%
American Staffordshire Terrier 480 400 80 83.3%
Australian Shepherd 549 442 107 80.5%
Bearded Collie 43 23 20 53.5%
Bouvier Des Flanders 837 707 130 84.5%
Bull Terrier 55 50 5 90.9%
Bulldog 120 82 38 68.3%
Bullmastiff 106 80 26 75.5%
Chinese Shar-Pei 201 140 61 69.7%
Collie 791 625 166 79.0%
Dalmatian 306 249 57 81.4%
Doberman Pinscher 1399 1070 329 76.5%
English Springer Spaniel 136 114 22 83.8%
German Shepherd Dog 2717 2250 467 82.8%
Golden Retriever 659 551 108 83.6%
Labrador Retriever 644 587 57 91.1%
Mastiff 142 120 22 84.5%
Mixed Breed 680 579 101 85.1%
Pembroke Welsh Corgi 177 139 38 78.5%
Rottweiler 4498 3702 796 82.3%
Shetland Sheepdog 459 306 153 66.7%
Staffordshire Bull Terrier 59 55 4 93.2%
Standard Poodle 206 178 28 86.4%
Weimaraner 202 161 41 79.7%
Whippet 175 148 27 84.6%

I don't know how to do tables, sorry. The first number is the total number of dogs tested, the second number is the number of dogs that passed the test. The third number is the number of dogs that failed and the final number is percent. These are for the period ending Dec. 2004

varwoche

28th June 2005, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Jas
I did state that staffies and pitties were often duel registered. Was there not a listing for American Staffordshire Terrier? I invite you to check; it's your evidence afterall.
From the link to the Wikipedia article I provided I don't mean to quibble Jas, but I'm on the fence re Wikipedia. Because anyone can publish anything, it's only a half step better than a post to an internet forum from an anonymous personna, imo. On the other hand I've seen good stuff there. I'll check out the link this evening.
I did say that the first two links were light on the info, and then proceeded to quote from the UKC and CKC, which I will repeat, since you didn't read the first time: To clarify, I asked for evidence supporting a specific claim you made, and you replied with two links that didn't support that claim. If there are other sources that do support the claim, posting them, instead of the bogus ones, would have enhanced our communication. Or if they had already been posted, you could have let me know that instead of sending me off to read non evidence.

CFLarsen

28th June 2005, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Jas
ATTS (http://www.atts.org/stats1.html) , Which was referenced in the Wikipedia article I linked to earlier.

That is more of a psychological test. There are no hard facts.

Originally posted by Jas
And, like I said...in temperment testing, the dogs identified as pitbulls, on average, were more likely to pass, and with higher marks, than other identifiable breeds (crossbreeds don't necessarily share traits with their parents, and can be almost impossible to identify, why is one of the biggest problems with the report you cited earlier).

Excuse me, but compared to what breeds, exactly?

The psychological evaluation is clearly contradicted by the hard facts. E.g., the American Pit Bull Terrier scores 83.4%, while the Golden Retriever, generally known to be one of the most friendly dogs, scores 83.6%. Yet, while the pit bull is responsible for the most casualties, the Golden Retriever isn't even on the list.

Do you think this is indicative that the ATTS' method might not be entirely reliable?

The CDC's numbers clearly distinguish between pit bull breed and pit bull crossbreed. Why should we trust the ATTS's method of identification and not the CDC's?

Jas

28th June 2005, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady
People's finances change; both up and down. And it's no easier to find a new home for a dog you can barely afford than it is to find a new home for your children if you're suddenly having trouble feeding them. And I don't remember anyone offering food stamps for or Aid for Dependant Pets.

People's finances do change, but when you get a dog, shouldn't you at least be able to have a pretty good idea of where you'll be for the next six months? Would you not strive for that level of stability? A dog can be fixed at 8 weeks of age, when you take them home (though, ideally, it should be 12 weeks). Getting them fixed is a basic requirement. It all comes down to responsibility.

Aslo, if you can't afford to get them fixed, there are options. At least here in town, there's the Veterinary Aid Society, which performs spay/neuter surgeries on a sliding scale (in some cities, it's the local shelter which performs these services, it depends on what sort of relationship that they have with the vets in the community), and our shelter offered a food bank for people who couldn't afford to feed their pets (sometimes we would even fix animals on the sly, free of charge, because for some people, especially those who were quasi-homeless, their animal was all they had).

But people also have to be willing to put in the legwork to find these programs. A little effort is sometimes required in life.

I have a german shepherd I've had for seven years. When I got her, I owned a profitable store and had 5 times the income I do now. But I'm not about to give her up to some shelter or rescue group just because her dog food takes a bigger chunk out of the wallet every week. I'll keep her even if I become reduced to feeding her table scraps.

And that's part of being a responsible owner. But if the option was her starving, or being given to another home, which would you choose? What if the option was dying of an illness you couldn't afford, or trying to find a new home, which would you choose?

Sorry, folks. But part of life is the risk that you or someone will die at any moment, due to just about anything. Failing to take heroic measures to prevent it doesn't make anyone negligent.

Getting your dogs fixed and putting them down when they show aggressive behaviour (as opposed to keeping them in the hosue with your children and breeding them),aren't exactly heroic measures...they're the bare minimum.

DragonLady

28th June 2005, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Jas
People's finances do change, but when you get a dog, shouldn't you at least be able to have a pretty good idea of where you'll be for the next six months? Would you not strive for that level of stability? A dog can be fixed at 8 weeks of age, when you take them home (though, ideally, it should be 12 weeks). Getting them fixed is a basic requirement. It all comes down to responsibility.

A "pretty good idea" is not a guarantee. When I got this shepherd, she was two years old, and the previous owner told me she was already spayed. It was quite a shock to discover she wasn't, and I only barely missed unwanted puppies.

I did manage a litter of unwanted hamsters. Supposedly, the pet store only sold animals of one sex...so we bought two and kept them together.... We never even knew the little thing was pregnant until we had eight little ones. :o

The point is, that like anything else, people have children, buy dogs, or even buy homes when they think they can afford it...and then lose them or are forced to make compromises when life doesn't turn out to be all wine-and-roses.

Aslo, if you can't afford to get them fixed, there are options. At least here in town, there's the Veterinary Aid Society, which performs spay/neuter surgeries on a sliding scale (in some cities, it's the local shelter which performs these services, it depends on what sort of relationship that they have with the vets in the community), and our shelter offered a food bank for people who couldn't afford to feed their pets (sometimes we would even fix animals on the sly, free of charge, because for some people, especially those who were quasi-homeless, their animal was all they had).

But people also have to be willing to put in the legwork to find these programs. A little effort is sometimes required in life.

Here, I'm inclined to agree with you, because she did live in an urban area. Out here where I am, getting a big dog into town for any kind of vet care can be difficult. And as far as I know, there's no free spay clinics or subsidized (sp?) programs for people here at all.

And that's part of being a responsible owner. But if the option was her starving, or being given to another home, which would you choose? What if the option was dying of an illness you couldn't afford, or trying to find a new home, which would you choose?

If she were starving, chances are I would be starving. And if I were starving the dog would be fair game for the dinner table. But I was raised to do whatever I have to do, so that's just me.

And so far as an illness I couldn't afford, I think that would just make it harder to find another home. I personally wouldn't take someone else's sick animal, and I wouldn't expect anyone to take mine.

Getting your dogs fixed and putting them down when they show aggressive behaviour (as opposed to keeping them in the hosue with your children and breeding them),aren't exactly heroic measures...they're the bare minimum.

Perhaps not. But doing things that seem like complete over-reactions to the situation at hand are. Saying the woman should've called 911 or gathered a posse of neighbors with pitchforks or gassed the dogs in the oven only make sense in hindsight -because we know how the story ended. None of those things would have seemed reasonable at the time.

Edited to make sense. :o

Jas

28th June 2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That is more of a psychological test. There are no hard facts.

Beinga s I deleted my entire original reply, this one won't be as indepth.
How do you suppose that they conduct a psychological test on dogs? They are subjected to stressors, including being pinched, approached from behind, loud noises, dominant dogs, etc. It's not like they fill out a form.

Secondly, the report you cite does not conclude that pitbulls are the most violent dogs. Aside from numerous problems with their data (including that when mixed breed dogs are indicated, they count each breed once, and it can be almost impossible to determine the parentage of a dog which is mized breed), in their concluding remarks, they state that the dogs involved change over time, and that it would be a better strategy to target owners. They also state that it can be almost impossible to determine if a breed is disproportionately represented, as it's difficult for them to obtain accurate records. The HSUS doesn't operate any shelters, their main activities are sending out emails and protesting. Nor do animal shelters report to them. The CDC also isn't an authority on dogs.

And, as I've stated numerous times, there are major problems with identification of breeds.

Thirdly, the report only details fatalities, not the occurences of bites. Obviously a bite from a more powerful dog is more likely to be fatal.

And if you look at

this report (http://www.luhs.org/depts/injprev/MiscInj2.pdf) from the AVMA, it pretty much says the same thing.

The report you quoted also said that chained dogs are more likely to bite, and that unneutered dogs are more likely to bite. Again, the typoe of people who often own pitbulls, are more likely to chain their dogs (an especially bad idea with rotties), and less likely to have them neutered (especially when you look at their ues as status symbols in inner city neighborhoods).

As far as what breeds they tested better than at are shelter...most of them. We got just about everything. Dalmatians tended not to score very high (although, to be fair, that could be directly linked to their hearing in most cases), and I can't remember ever seeing an American Eskimo or Chihuahua pass the test. Miniature pinschers ('minpins') were also quite nasty. They also tended to score higher than 'sporting', and 'non-sporting' breeds.

The point is, dog-bite 'stats' are anything but. In my experience working at a shelter, the pitties weren't the dogs we worried about. I can recall several bites, none of which in recent memory involved pitbulls. Essentially, certain breeds of dogs are more popular than others with certain elements of society, and it's that society's treatment of these animals which you see come out in it's behaviour.

Jas

28th June 2005, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
A "pretty good idea" is not a guarantee. When I got this shepherd, she was two years old, and the previous owner told me she was already spayed. It was quite a shock to discover she wasn't, and I only barely missed unwanted puppies.

No, it's not a guarantee. But then fix the animal to begin with. and while it would be nice to rely on the honesty of others, unfortuanately, it's not a perfect world

The point is, that like anything else, people have children, buy dogs, or even buy homes when they think they can afford it...and then lose them or are forced to make compromises when life doesn't turn out to be all wine-and-roses.

Your kids life shouldn't be a compromise though.

Here, I'm inclined to agree with you, because she did live in an urban area. Out here where I am, getting a big dog into town for any kind of vet care can be difficult. And as far as I know, there's no free spay clinics or subsidized (sp?) programs for people here at all.

Things are different in rural areas, for sure.

Saying the woman should've called 911 or gathered a posse of neighbors with pitchforks or gassed the dogs in the oven only make sense in hindsight -because we know how the story ended. None of those things would have seemed reasonable at the time.

No one said those things. Like I said, calling animal control, and/or having the dogs fixed or euthanized are not exactly extreme measures.

Lisa Simpson

28th June 2005, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Jas

No one said those things. Like I said, calling animal control, and/or having the dogs fixed or euthanized are not exactly extreme measures.

Yes. And the simplest, most logical thing to do would have been to lock up the dogs right after they bit the kid earlier in the day.

CFLarsen

28th June 2005, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Jas
Beinga s I deleted my entire original reply, this one won't be as indepth.
How do you suppose that they conduct a psychological test on dogs? They are subjected to stressors, including being pinched, approached from behind, loud noises, dominant dogs, etc. It's not like they fill out a form.

I don't think it's such a good indicator of how vicious a dog breed actually is. Unfortunately, it is far better to look at the actual hard data to determine that.

Originally posted by Jas
Secondly, the report you cite does not conclude that pitbulls are the most violent dogs.

They are by far the most lethal dogs. Surely, you agree with that?

Originally posted by Jas
Aside from numerous problems with their data (including that when mixed breed dogs are indicated, they count each breed once, and it can be almost impossible to determine the parentage of a dog which is mized breed), in their concluding remarks, they state that the dogs involved change over time, and that it would be a better strategy to target owners. They also state that it can be almost impossible to determine if a breed is disproportionately represented, as it's difficult for them to obtain accurate records. The HSUS doesn't operate any shelters, their main activities are sending out emails and protesting. Nor do animal shelters report to them. The CDC also isn't an authority on dogs.

Stop.

The report I provided specifically divides pit bulls as a breed and a crossbreed.

I don't give a flying ****whether the dogs involved changed over time. As per my announcement, this is an inappropriate "heated" remark in this section of the forum. The same point could have been made without the profanity.What I care about is the actual number of dead bodies caused by these dogs. It doesn't matter if a dog that has killed a human being later changes behavior.

It doesn't matter if the CDC is an authority on dogs. What matters is, do they count the dead bodies correctly? Have you any reason to doubt their data?

Originally posted by Jas
And, as I've stated numerous times, there are major problems with identification of breeds.

Sure. I don't just see why we should automatically choose your way of identifying them.

Originally posted by Jas
Thirdly, the report only details fatalities, not the occurences of bites. Obviously a bite from a more powerful dog is more likely to be fatal.

If you now want to talk about hard facts, let's see them.

Originally posted by Jas
The report you quoted also said that chained dogs are more likely to bite, and that unneutered dogs are more likely to bite. Again, the typoe of people who often own pitbulls, are more likely to chain their dogs (an especially bad idea with rotties), and less likely to have them neutered (especially when you look at their ues as status symbols in inner city neighborhoods).

Hey, there are many factors to consider. I look at the pile of dead bodies.

Originally posted by Jas
As far as what breeds they tested better than at are shelter...most of them. We got just about everything. Dalmatians tended not to score very high (although, to be fair, that could be directly linked to their hearing in most cases), and I can't remember ever seeing an American Eskimo or Chihuahua pass the test.

According to your ATTS data, 82.7% of the American Eskimos passed (almost as many as the pit bull), while 70.6% of the Chihuahuas passed. It shows that memory can't be trusted. It also shows that the test is not an accurate way of determining the danger of each species.

Originally posted by Jas
Miniature pinschers ('minpins') were also quite nasty. They also tended to score higher than 'sporting', and 'non-sporting' breeds.

80.0% of pinschers passed. What is a "sporting" and "non-sporting" breed?

Originally posted by Jas
The point is, dog-bite 'stats' are anything but. In my experience working at a shelter, the pitties weren't the dogs we worried about. I can recall several bites, none of which in recent memory involved pitbulls. Essentially, certain breeds of dogs are more popular than others with certain elements of society, and it's that society's treatment of these animals which you see come out in it's behaviour.

I bring hard facts. You bring your unverifiable anecdotes. Which do you think carry the most weight on a skeptics' forum?

DragonLady

28th June 2005, 01:26 PM

Your kids life shouldn't be a compromise though.

I could fill up a forum with stories of things that "shouldn't be". That doesn't change the fact they are.

Face it, children suffer. They suffer in every nation, under every religion, in every economic situation, with every known medical condition and from every concievable accident.

Finding a way to demonize the parents/doctors/government/product manufacturers or whatever may be the great American pastime now. But that doesn't make me agree with it.

I don't think this woman intentionally or negligently put her child at risk. That doesn't change the fact he was at risk. It doesn't change the fact things could've or should've been different. But they don't make her a criminal.

Yes. And the simplest, most logical thing to do would have been to lock up the dogs right after they bit the kid earlier in the day.

She chose to seperate the boy and the dogs. She did the simplest, most logical thing.

She chose to send the boy to the basement, and made pains to keep him there.

I don't know why she didn't do it the other way around...but when in that situation, I didn't either.

But you all are saying she was negligent. So far, no one has called me negligent. What's the difference? That my son is alive? That my dog happened to be small? That I wasn't charged?

What about the boy's negligence? He was 12 years old. Plenty old enough to know what "behave" meant. Plenty old enough to know he was putting himself into danger by leaving the basement.

If he had been cruel to the dogs...if this whole story were reversed and the poor pitbulls were the victims of some unspeakable cruelty, I'll wager you would be arguing he should be charged as an adult.

There were two creatures in this world that posed a threat to that little boy. And they killed him. The dogs should be put down, the boy should be mourned. The mother should be comforted, not prosecuted. Everyone involved has suffered enough.

Jas

28th June 2005, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I don't think it's such a good indicator of how vicious a dog breed actually is. Unfortunately, it is far better to look at the actual hard data to determine that.

They are by far the most lethal dogs. Surely, you agree with that?

If it were that easy to say that, don't you think they would have said that in your report? Where in it does it say "based on this data, pitbulls are the most lethal breed of dogs".

The report I provided specifically divides pit bulls as a breed and a crossbreed.

The report states that if it's a crossbreed, the parentage of each dog counts as one. So if you had an AkitaxPitbull (and the people who let their dogs breed like that, generally don't keep records, so it's guesswork, at best, usually identified by the victim, who usually isn't a dog expert), then for ONE attack, pitbull and Akita would each get a mark.

I don't give a flying f*ck whether the dogs involved changed over time. What I care about is the actual number of dead bodies caused by these dogs. It doesn't matter if a dog that has killed a human being later changes behavior.

So you don't give a flying f*ck if the report says that in more recent years, the dogs most implicated in human fatalities are Rottweilers (and the authors of the report said that their numbers did not mean that the breed was more likely to be dangerous), you still think that pitbulls are the most lethal breed.

It doesn't matter if the CDC is an authority on dogs. What matters is, do they count the dead bodies correctly? Have you any reason to doubt their data?

It does matter. They can count the bodies, doesn't mean that they can count the dogs.

Sure. I don't just see why we should automatically choose your way of identifying them.

I never said we should use my method, but they should have a definite way of identifying breeds. If they did, they wouldn't have referred to the animals as 'pitbulls'. It would have been Staffies (one of two types), or APBT's. I very strongly doub that the dogs they refer to as pitbulls were all pureblood APBT's.

If you now want to talk about hard facts, let's see them.

Is the AVMA a woo organization? What about what they have to say, or the authors of your reports

Hey, there are many factors to consider. I look at the pile of dead bodies.

Which, according to the report you cited, is not necessarily the fault of one breed. Otherwise, in their conclusion, instead of talking about how it was difficult to obtain correct data, and to calculate the risk posed by each breed, they would have said 'pitbulls are dangerous'.

CFLarsen

28th June 2005, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Jas
If it were that easy to say that, don't you think they would have said that in your report? Where in it does it say "based on this data, pitbulls are the most lethal breed of dogs".

It would be most helpful, if you would make an effort and actually read the report. There are 60 fatalities by the breed "pit bull", by far the most by any breed. The second most dangerous breed is Rottweiler, with 29.

Do you deny these numbers, yes or no?

Originally posted by Jas
The report states that if it's a crossbreed, the parentage of each dog counts as one. So if you had an AkitaxPitbull (and the people who let their dogs breed like that, generally don't keep records, so it's guesswork, at best, usually identified by the victim, who usually isn't a dog expert), then for ONE attack, pitbull and Akita would each get a mark.

I am not interested in your hand waving. Look at the hard data. How many were killed by the breed "pit bull"?

Originally posted by Jas
So you don't give a flying **** if the report says that in more recent years, the dogs most implicated in human fatalities are Rottweilers (and the authors of the report said that their numbers did not mean that the breed was more likely to be dangerous), you still think that pitbulls are the most lethal breed.

I don't give a flying **** about what has happened in more recent years, especially because you haven't been able to provide any hard data at all.

As per my announcement. Again this inappropriate for this section of the forum especially since the excuse of "heated exchange" can no longer be applied.

Originally posted by Jas
It does matter. They can count the bodies, doesn't mean that they can count the dogs.

We are not discussing anything else but the danger these dogs present.

Originally posted by Jas
I never said we should use my method, but they should have a definite way of identifying breeds. If they did, they wouldn't have referred to the animals as 'pitbulls'. It would have been Staffies (one of two types), or APBT's. I very strongly doub that the dogs they refer to as pitbulls were all pureblood APBT's.

Should have, would have, could have. No, we don't live in a perfect world, but there is one discomforting fact you can't get around: 60 dead people.

Originally posted by Jas
Is the AVMA a woo organization? What about what they have to say, or the authors of your reports

Ask them. Get some hard data.

Originally posted by Jas
Which, according to the report you cited, is not necessarily the fault of one breed. Otherwise, in their conclusion, instead of talking about how it was difficult to obtain correct data, and to calculate the risk posed by each breed, they would have said 'pitbulls are dangerous'.

Look, either you provide some hard facts that we can discuss, or you admit that you have not been able to provide hardcord evidence that pit bulls are not as dangerous as the evidence shows.

It doesn't matter if the CDC is an authority on dogs. What matters is, do they count the dead bodies correctly? Have you any reason to doubt their data?

Pit bulls are by far the most lethal dogs. Surely, you agree with that?

What is a "sporting" and "non-sporting" breed?

I bring hard facts. You bring your unverifiable anecdotes. Which do you think carry the most weight on a skeptics' forum?

Lisa Simpson

28th June 2005, 02:23 PM

Sporting (http://www.akc.org/breeds/sporting_group.cfm)

Hound (http://www.akc.org/breeds/hound_group.cfm)

working (http://www.akc.org/breeds/working_group.cfm)

Terrier (http://www.akc.org/breeds/terrier_group.cfm)

Toy (http://www.akc.org/breeds/toy_group.cfm)

Non-sporting (http://www.akc.org/breeds/non-sporting_group.cfm)

Herding (http://www.akc.org/breeds/herding_group.cfm)

Miscellaneous (http://www.akc.org/breeds/miscellaneous_class.cfm)

Jas

28th June 2005, 04:10 PM

[CFlarsen...

I'm not going to even bother going through this with you. You presented a report. I pointed out the problem with this report and the numbers given, problems which were spelled out by the reports authors, and by the authors of a separate report by the AVMA.

Yet you still fail to grasp what I'm saying.

The report would be valid if (and this would probably involve them takijng the *'s off from around the word 'pitbull'), they could say with 100% that the dogs implicated were pitbulls.

The report would be valid if they could say with 100% certainty that the crossbreeds implicated came from pitbull stock.

The report would be valid if they had accurate licensing reports.

The report would be valid if they took into account if the dogs were altered, if they were tied up, how many of that breed there were in the area (for example, if there were 500 APBT's in the area, with 5 attacks, they wouldn't be as lethal as 10 Presa Canarios with 2 attacks).

In fact, they claim that their report is limited by that lack of information.

The AVMA report says that dog bite statistics aren't accurate for those reasons.

So I'm not denying your report has those numbers, I'm saying that they don't mean anything, unless they take other factors into account.

And thanks, Lisa Simpson, for posting up the different breed groups, I forgot to do that earlier.

Lisa Simpson

28th June 2005, 06:17 PM

Here's an interesting article about pit bulls and legislation in the wake of four dog attacks in the Bay Area this month.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/12003165.htm

While I disagree with breed specific legislation, I did like Boston's attempt at a solution.

Denver has decided to ban the breed. Other places, like Boston, require that owners neuter their pit bulls.

Roadtoad

28th June 2005, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
I could fill up a forum with stories of things that "shouldn't be". That doesn't change the fact they are.

Face it, children suffer. They suffer in every nation, under every religion, in every economic situation, with every known medical condition and from every concievable accident.

Finding a way to demonize the parents/doctors/government/product manufacturers or whatever may be the great American pastime now. But that doesn't make me agree with it.

I don't think this woman intentionally or negligently put her child at risk. That doesn't change the fact he was at risk. It doesn't change the fact things could've or should've been different. But they don't make her a criminal.

She chose to seperate the boy and the dogs. She did the simplest, most logical thing.

She chose to send the boy to the basement, and made pains to keep him there.

I don't know why she didn't do it the other way around...but when in that situation, I didn't either.

But you all are saying she was negligent. So far, no one has called me negligent. What's the difference? That my son is alive? That my dog happened to be small? That I wasn't charged?

What about the boy's negligence? He was 12 years old. Plenty old enough to know what "behave" meant. Plenty old enough to know he was putting himself into danger by leaving the basement.

If he had been cruel to the dogs...if this whole story were reversed and the poor pitbulls were the victims of some unspeakable cruelty, I'll wager you would be arguing he should be charged as an adult.

There were two creatures in this world that posed a threat to that little boy. And they killed him. The dogs should be put down, the boy should be mourned. The mother should be comforted, not prosecuted. Everyone involved has suffered enough.

All right. First of all, yes, kids suffer, but you don't allow them to suffer when there's no need to. This woman chose to ignore evidence that the dogs were a threat to her child.

Sorry, but that's negligence. It's stupidity, too, but we'll discuss that part of it later.

Your dog was not a threat to the life of your child. I think you made a mistake in how you chose to deal with it, but your child is alive.

She did not do the simplest thing. She did the dumb thing. She put the dogs first and locked a twelve year old, a minor, in the basement. I've got four boys. Not one of them would have stayed in the basement either. They're the children, the dogs are dogs, and the kids have priority, NOT THE F***ING DOGS!

We have no evidence of the kid being cruel to the dogs. We have plenty of evidence of negligence on the part of the mother. Sorry, charging her is the right decision, and thankfully, the City of San Francisco is doing something right for once.

CFLarsen

29th June 2005, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Jas
[CFlarsen...

I'm not going to even bother going through this with you. You presented a report. I pointed out the problem with this report and the numbers given, problems which were spelled out by the reports authors, and by the authors of a separate report by the AVMA.

Yet you still fail to grasp what I'm saying.

The report would be valid if (and this would probably involve them takijng the *'s off from around the word 'pitbull'), they could say with 100% that the dogs implicated were pitbulls.

The report would be valid if they could say with 100% certainty that the crossbreeds implicated came from pitbull stock.

The report would be valid if they had accurate licensing reports.

The report would be valid if they took into account if the dogs were altered, if they were tied up, how many of that breed there were in the area (for example, if there were 500 APBT's in the area, with 5 attacks, they wouldn't be as lethal as 10 Presa Canarios with 2 attacks).

In fact, they claim that their report is limited by that lack of information.

The AVMA report says that dog bite statistics aren't accurate for those reasons.

So I'm not denying your report has those numbers, I'm saying that they don't mean anything, unless they take other factors into account.

And thanks, Lisa Simpson, for posting up the different breed groups, I forgot to do that earlier.

So, you say that 60 dead people don't mean anything, when we try to assess how dangerous pit bulls are, but you can't come up with hard facts yourself.

OK.

schplurg

29th June 2005, 02:45 AM

DragonLady:
Perhaps not. But doing things that seem like complete over-reactions to the situation at hand are. Saying the woman should've called 911 or gathered a posse of neighbors with pitchforks or gassed the dogs in the oven only make sense in hindsight -because we know how the story ended. None of those things would have seemed reasonable at the time.

All I said was that she should have locked up the dogs...minimum!!! She locked her kid in a basement using a shovel! This is pretty hard evidence that she knew the dogs were dangerous, and that he would try to escape. Yet she just HAD to go out and run those errands!

But you all are saying she was negligent. So far, no one has called me negligent. What's the difference? That my son is alive? That my dog happened to be small? That I wasn't charged?

Yes, you were negligent. A child can open doors, most dogs cannot. This lady, and perhaps you as well, should have locked up the dogs. Yes to the other questions.

What about the boy's negligence? He was 12 years old. Plenty old enough to know what "behave" meant. Plenty old enough to know he was putting himself into danger by leaving the basement.

You are a parent, correct? A 12 year old boy is not a responsible adult. Or is a parent's job done after 12 years? He didn't know what "behave" meant. I believe the mother's quote was "Typical Nicky, he didn't listen." Even the mother seems to blame the child here. You're scaring me.

If he had been cruel to the dogs...if this whole story were reversed and the poor pitbulls were the victims of some unspeakable cruelty, I'll wager you would be arguing he should be charged as an adult.

WTF? I would not. What if he found a gun in the house and shot himself? Who is to blame? Should he have known better?

There were two creatures in this world that posed a threat to that little boy. And they killed him. The dogs should be put down, the boy should be mourned. The mother should be comforted, not prosecuted. Everyone involved has suffered enough.

There were two creatures that posed a threat to that little boy, and one creature who could have easily prevented them from doing him any harm. The dogs were allowed to roam free in his house by his mother, even after one had bitten him, even though she knew the male was aggressive at the time. Yes, they killed him, all three of them. The boy should be mourned, the mother should be held accountable for his death and should be prosecuted like the negligent idiot she is.

Apparently, any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental. ;)

As per my announcement the last comment is borderline.

DragonLady

29th June 2005, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
All right. First of all, yes, kids suffer, but you don't allow them to suffer when there's no need to. This woman chose to ignore evidence that the dogs were a threat to her child.

She did NOT ignore the evidence, unless the dogs had a prior history of violence before that fateful day.

[b]Sorry, but that's negligence. It's stupidity, too, but we'll discuss that part of it later.

Negligence would've been saying something like "Gee, Son...that's one heckuva bite ya got there...as soon as yer done leakin', take the mutt for a walk." Or "Bit ya agin, same as last week, huh?"

There's no evidence so far that the dogs were any trouble whatsoever until something changed. And that means she had no reason to believe they would continue to be a problem when the variable -the female's estrus- was over. And no reason to believe that the threat was as great as what it turned out to be. When you hear hoofbeats, there's no reason to look for zebras.

Y'all seem to believe the one of biggest elements of her "negligence" was that she owned pitbulls. Or something like them. But as other people keep pointing out, most of those dogs aren't even particularly violent unless something or someone makes them that way.

Your dog was not a threat to the life of your child. I think you made a mistake in how you chose to deal with it, but your child is alive.

Sure, we can say that NOW. He lived to tell the tale. If he had not, would that make me a criminal?

Looking back, the way I handled it probably was a mistake. But that's the nature of mistakes -something that seems perfectly reasonable, logical, and right until the fact it isn't is revealed. And we don't prosecute people for making mistakes. We prosecute them for knowingly and purposefully putting another person in danger. And I just can't see that in this case.

She did not do the simplest thing. She did the dumb thing. She put the dogs first and locked a twelve year old, a minor, in the basement. I've got four boys. Not one of them would have stayed in the basement either. They're the children, the dogs are dogs, and the kids have priority, NOT THE F***ING DOGS!

I 100% agree the kids have priority. What I don't believe is that she was criminally negligent for putting the boy in the basement and leaving the dogs free in the house. Backwards perhaps, but not a criminal act.

And, I'll bet...

She didn't worry about the boy crapping on the floor.
She didn't figure the boy would chew up the carpet.
She figured the boy would ask if he needed a drink of water so she didn't have to find a container that wouldn't get spilled all over the floor.
She figured the boy was big enough and bright enough to understand what was going on, and would be able to take a proactive role in helping keep himself safe.

Reasonable ideas, all of them. Nothing illogical, stupid, unrealistic or negligent about them.

My son is twelve now, too. And I know just how hard it can be to get him to cooperate. He hates being seen with me in public -it hurts his "image" with his peers. For him, admitting he has parents is hard, being seen in their company is a mortal sin. It doesn't surprise me one bit she left him home while she ran an errand -whatever that might've been. I've said before I think I would've stayed in the basement with the boy, but that's a temporary measure, at best. She couldn't stay there all day.

And as I said before, if she was really worried about his safety leading him out past them wouldn't have seemed reasonable or safe. Certainly that fact hasn't been mentioned in any of the news stories, but I think it would've been the first thing on my mind.

We have no evidence of the kid being cruel to the dogs.

And no evidence that he wasn't cruel. We do have plenty of evidence that he refused to obey, even when his life depended on it. And sorry, but I believe that if he won't behave when his own life is at stake then he probably didn't behave when it wasn't.

We have plenty of evidence of negligence on the part of the mother. Sorry, charging her is the right decision, and thankfully, the City of San Francisco is doing something right for once.

I agree she made mistakes. And I can agree to disagree about the rest.

BTW, my son says that it was both their faults. The mom should've made the boy understand how important it was that he stay in the basement and the boy should've just stayed there.

But he does have trouble understanding why she had to go to the store...and honestly, so do I. His thought was that went to buy a doggie fence -something that would hold them in one room or contain them somehow.

Does anyone know what kind of store? That might really sway my opinion if she just decided to pop out for a doughnut or to buy herself a blouse. :(

DragonLady

29th June 2005, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by schplurg

All I said was that she should have locked up the dogs...minimum!!! She locked her kid in a basement using a shovel! This is pretty hard evidence that she knew the dogs were dangerous, and that he would try to escape. Yet she just HAD to go out and run those errands!

Yes, she locked the boy in the basement. I agree that was backwards, but I can't say it was criminal. It just wasn't.

Yes, you were negligent. A child can open doors, most dogs cannot. This lady, and perhaps you as well, should have locked up the dogs. Yes to the other questions.

Fine. As I've said, that's the nature of mistakes. And when people panic, they make mistakes. They do things that seem logical and reasonable, but when they're calm & thinking more clearly they realize they weren't.

But I did have reasons for what I did at the time. It's been eight years, so I can't really (honestly) recall all of them now. But under the circumstances, they seemed 'right'.

What about the boy's negligence? He was 12 years old. Plenty old enough to know what "behave" meant. Plenty old enough to know he was putting himself into danger by leaving the basement.

You are a parent, correct? A 12 year old boy is not a responsible adult. Or is a parent's job done after 12 years? He didn't know what "behave" meant. I believe the mother's quote was "Typical Nicky, he didn't listen." Even the mother seems to blame the child here. You're scaring me.

First, no, I'm not blaming the boy. Or his mother.

But what a world you must live in. Where any boy 12 or under can do whatever he pleases without knowing what behave means.

Let's see...he can open the front door to any stranger who knocks.
He can climb in a car with anyone who asks.
He doesn't have to worry if his baseball flies through a neighbor's window. 74 times. In one week.
He doesn't have to "behave" in school. Or in church. He isn't expected to mind his table manners or look both ways before he crosses the street.

Yikes. I'm glad my son knows what "behave" means. He may not be perfect, but he can be trusted around the corner.

And lest you forget, boys of twelve are regularly charged as adults if they commit a crime. They aren't "adult" enough to do as they're told (apparently) or talk back to the principal, but they're "adult" enough to go to prison for life if they don't "behave".

WTF? I would not. What if he found a gun in the house and shot himself? Who is to blame? Should he have known better?

It depends on the circumstances. I was raised around guns...they were in the house before I was born and easily accessible my whole life. But the penalty for touching one without being invited was so severe that even now -at forty years old- I shudder at the thought of it. Of course, I was raised "old school". Daddy said jump, and we asked "how high?" with our feet off the ground.

There were two creatures that posed a threat to that little boy, and one creature who could have easily prevented them from doing him any harm. The dogs were allowed to roam free in his house by his mother, even after one had bitten him, even though she knew the male was aggressive at the time. Yes, they killed him, all three of them. The boy should be mourned, the mother should be held accountable for his death and should be prosecuted like the negligent idiot she is.

[Sigh] I agree to disagree with you.

Apparently, any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental. ;)

Fair enough.

varwoche

29th June 2005, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady
Yes, she locked the boy in the basement. I agree that was backwards, but I can't say it was criminal. It just wasn't. "It just wasn't" isn't a compelling argument.

The mother may well have committed criminal child neglect/abuse even if the kid hadn't been attacked and killed, simply for keeping a dangerous animal in the same house, and/or for leaving the kid alone locked in the basement.

Throwing the book at this sorry excuse for a parent appears so clear cut that this debate borders on the surreal imo.

Legalities aside, a responsible parent will error on the side of safety. That's why I consider it vastly irresponsible to have a pit bull (as well as various other terriers) in the same house with young children, even if the animal had a clean record.

Phrost

29th June 2005, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
You are being too literal.

But in reading this whole sad story, the only thing I can think is that this woman is gallingly self-absorbed. (Sort of like my @$$hole brother-in-law.) I know plenty of people from the Bay Area who are just like her, quite the opposite of what I would expect from such an area, given the stated philosophy and politics. I know many people who live there who are exceptionally kind and generous, but I seem to keep encountering the jerks.

Not fun.

Three pages later I'm here to back you up on this.

A year ago, maybe more, I stated here that one could make a strong argument for God's existence based off the fact that it seemed he was herding all the ******** into California to get rid of them in one fell swoop with an earthquake.

I'd just moved from the Bay Area.

Many Californians in the Bay Area have a ridiculous sense of entitlement. Entitlement to get what they want without having to earn it legitimately (hustling, scamming), entitlement to lifestyles that infringe on the rights of others (breeding fighting dogs in apartments, yelling in movie theaters, road rage), and entitlement to menace anyone who objects to such actions.

Lisa Simpson

29th June 2005, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by varwoche

The mother may well have committed criminal child neglect/abuse even if the kid hadn't been attacked and killed, simply for keeping a dangerous animal in the same house, and/or for leaving the kid alone locked in the basement.

I agree, just locking the kid in the basement even without the dogs should be enough to charge her with child endangerment. What if there was a fire? What if the kid got hurt in the basement and couldn't get out?

Jas

29th June 2005, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you say that 60 dead people don't mean anything, when we try to assess how dangerous pit bulls are, but you can't come up with hard facts yourself.

OK.

Well, 60 dead people would mean something, if the report was done properly, and the problems in the report were addressed.

Jas

29th June 2005, 12:33 PM

Only vaguely related, but this site had me pissing my pants laughing:A Psychic's Dog (http://www.circle-of-light.com/Calidad/index2.html) .

Aside from being completely off the mark factually, the woman's a complete nutter.

Roadtoad

29th June 2005, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Jas
Only vaguely related, but this site had me pissing my pants laughing:A Psychic's Dog (http://www.circle-of-light.com/Calidad/index2.html) .

Aside from being completely off the mark factually, the woman's a complete nutter.

Some day, when we have time, let me tell you about my Rosie. She's a rare gem of a dog, a Rott/Shepherd mix, (we tell the "experts" she's a Tule Shepherd, [pronounced "TOO-lee"]), and you'd be surprised by the pronouncements we hear about our dog's "show quality," or lack of it.

Jas

29th June 2005, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
(we tell the "experts" she's a Tule Shepherd, [pronounced "TOO-lee"]), and you'd be surprised by the pronouncements we hear about our dog's "show quality," or lack of it.

Yeah, it can be impossible to tell with mixed breeds, unless you have someone who's a professional judge for a living.

I was never the 'breed expert' at the shelter, half of the dogs would be shepherdx, colliex, rottiex retrieverx, etc. Then some other department would decide that they were a purebred hungarian wonderdog or something. Although, granted, they were more likely to be adopted.

It's all in the name.

(Ttw, which one is a tule shepherd? I don't think I've ever come across one. Do they go by another name?)

Elind

29th June 2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by kittynh
It's Nicky's time to go," she said in the interview. "When you're born you're destined to go and this was his time."

this is a quote from a mom who left her child home with a male pit bull she was "worried about". The female pit bull was in heat. Mom's solution when she went to the store was to tell her son to stay in the basement. Mom seems to blame the child, as "Typically he didn't listen to me."

So....why not lock the dog in the the basement? Why even have a dog you worry about? Hello????

No charges filed.

No charges? Perhaps this is different case, but I seem to recall a mother being sentenced, and jailed, for child endangerment in a similar sounding case very recently.

As for "the time to go" bit; what's the surprise? One hears the equivalent reference to God's will every day; from coaches who win games, to the President.

CFLarsen

29th June 2005, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Jas
Well, 60 dead people would mean something, if the report was done properly, and the problems in the report were addressed.

What else do you need that 60 dead people from attacks from pit bulls?

Roadtoad

29th June 2005, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Jas
Yeah, it can be impossible to tell with mixed breeds, unless you have someone who's a professional judge for a living.

I was never the 'breed expert' at the shelter, half of the dogs would be shepherdx, colliex, rottiex retrieverx, etc. Then some other department would decide that they were a purebred hungarian wonderdog or something. Although, granted, they were more likely to be adopted.

It's all in the name.

(Ttw, which one is a tule shepherd? I don't think I've ever come across one. Do they go by another name?)

There's really no such breed, but it's fun to watch the "experts" when you tell them something like that.

DragonLady

29th June 2005, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by varwoche
"It just wasn't" isn't a compelling argument.

No, I don't suppose it is. :)

The mother may well have committed criminal child neglect/abuse even if the kid hadn't been attacked and killed, simply for keeping a dangerous animal in the same house, and/or for leaving the kid alone locked in the basement.

The "kid" was twelve years old. And he was in danger. Locking him the basement was intended to help keep him safe. Just locking him there for fun would be another matter.

Throwing the book at this sorry excuse for a parent appears so clear cut that this debate borders on the surreal imo.

You're not a defense attorney, by any chance?

I like to debate. And I often choose difficult topics or the hard side of topics to argue. But in this case, I really believe she deserves a break. I'm not arguing she was right. And I'm not arguing mistakes weren't made or that there were better options or smarter ways to solve the problem. I'm just arguing that she isn't a criminal.

She did what she did in an ernest effort to make things better and to keep her son from further injury. How can you want to throw someone in prison for that?

Legalities aside, a responsible parent will error on the side of safety. That's why I consider it vastly irresponsible to have a pit bull (as well as various other terriers) in the same house with young children, even if the animal had a clean record. [/B]

And that is exactly what she did. She made mistakes, but in doing them she erred on the side of safety. She put him in the basement & tried to lock him there in an effort to keep him safe.

As to whether she should've had the dogs at all...well, that's open to another debate, isn't it. I'm not convinced that pit bulls are any more dangerous than any other dog.

BTW, Jas, I never acknowledge what you said here:

(snip), and our shelter offered a food bank for people who couldn't afford to feed their pets (sometimes we would even fix animals on the sly, free of charge, because for some people, especially those who were quasi-homeless, their animal was all they had).

You're doing a good thing. :cool:

varwoche

29th June 2005, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
The "kid" was twelve years old. And he was in danger. Locking him the basement was intended to help keep him safe. Just locking him there for fun would be another matter. In WA state it's illegal to leave a child under 13 home alone, not sure about CA. I'd be very surprised if in CA it's legal to leave a child alone and locked up for any reason (see Lisa Simpson's comments).
And that is exactly what she did. She made mistakes, but in doing them she erred on the side of safety. In my opinion, she had completely failed to error on the side of safety by having a dangerous dog in the house with children to begin with. She did what she did in an ernest effort to make things better and to keep her son from further injury. How can you want to throw someone in prison for that? I disagree with your analysis in sentence one, hence I can't answer your question in sentence two. As to whether she should've had the dogs at all...well, that's open to another debate, isn't it. I'm not convinced that pit bulls are any more dangerous than any other dog. Do the CDC statistics even give you pause?

You don't need proof that pit bulls are dangerous to error on the side of safety. You just need solid evidence. Like 60 dead people. (And like countless other metadata points, i.e. jurisdictions banning them outright.) A responsible parent sees this information and acts accordingly, even if not convinced.

A responsible person who is a intelligent takes it even a step further: When you weigh the potential upside of pitbull ownership with the potential downside (a dead child, a dead neighbor child, kids' friends not allowed to come over, pariah in the neighborhood, legal liability, etc.), it's a no-brainer.

varwoche

29th June 2005, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady (to another member)
You're doing a good thing. :cool: An argument can be made that with so many human beings starving to death and otherwise suffering under conditions that you and I are unable to even fathom, that it's sociopathic.

DragonLady

30th June 2005, 12:53 AM

And I would agree with you -will agree with you- about leaving the child, if she left the house for any reason that wasn't absolutely neccesary. If she went to find help with the situation at hand, fine. If she had to be in court or left to find a pay phone or went to buy a muzzle. I might accept that she went to the grocery, but only if there was nothing in the house to eat (possible, because they were moving). But if she just left to pick up the dry cleaning or to take back her library books...then you are right.

In my opinion, she had completely failed to error on the side of safety by having a dangerous dog in the house with children to begin with.

There has been no evidence presented that the dogs were dangerous before the day in question.

You don't need proof that pit bulls are dangerous to error on the side of safety. You just need solid evidence. Like 60 dead people. (And like countless other metadata points, i.e. jurisdictions banning them outright.) A responsible parent sees this information and acts accordingly, even if not convinced.

Maybe. First, did she see the information? A surprising number of people are uninformed about the simplest things.

Second, how long has she had these dogs? If they started a body count of victims of German Shepherds, I still probably wouldn't get rid of mine -unless she became violent. Other people's experiences don't count too much if I don't have clear, convincing evidence they aren't just a bunch of morons.

--------

Originally posted by varwoche
An argument can be made that with so many human beings starving to death and otherwise suffering under conditions that you and I are unable to even fathom, that it's sociopathic.

I have to say you have really lost me here.

All of our arguing this topic aside...we may never see eye-to-eye but so what?

What exactly are you doing to allieviate all the human suffering and starvation? And how exactly does that detract from anyone else's efforts?

Roadtoad

30th June 2005, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by varwoche
In my opinion, she had completely failed to error on the side of safety by having a dangerous dog in the house with children to begin with. I disagree with your analysis in sentence one, hence I can't answer your question in sentence two. Do the CDC statistics even give you pause?

You don't need proof that pit bulls are dangerous to error on the side of safety. You just need solid evidence. Like 60 dead people. (And like countless other metadata points, i.e. jurisdictions banning them outright.) A responsible parent sees this information and acts accordingly, even if not convinced.

A responsible person who is a intelligent takes it even a step further: When you weigh the potential upside of pitbull ownership with the potential downside (a dead child, a dead neighbor child, kids' friends not allowed to come over, pariah in the neighborhood, legal liability, etc.), it's a no-brainer.

I don't know if the Pits are really as dangerous as advertised, (my suspicion is that there is misidentification, as has been stated, and there is an overreaction based upon the actions of a number of sociopaths), but you're correct here, Varwoche. When you have strong indication, as has been pointed out again and again, particularly that of the dogs in question themselves being agressive, you have NO excuse for these actions.

I'm sorry, but the facts are what they are. You can argue about the intent, and you can play word games all you like, but the boy died because his mother put greater value on the lives of the dogs than she did on her child. She's negligent.

Skeptical Greg

30th June 2005, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady
And I would agree with you -will agree with you- about leaving the child, if she left the house for any reason that wasn't absolutely neccesary. If she went to find help with the situation at hand, fine. If she had to be in court or left to find a pay phone or went to buy a muzzle. I might accept that she went to the grocery, but only if there was nothing in the house to eat (possible, because they were moving). But if she just left to pick up the dry cleaning or to take back her library books...then you are right.

There has been no evidence presented that the dogs were dangerous before the day in question.

Would you say that this is a valid defense for any type of violent behavior?

" Shucks judge, I've never stabbed anyone before.. "

Maybe. First, did she see the information? A surprising number of people are uninformed about the simplest things.

She seemed to be informed enough to think she needed to lock the kid in the basement.

Second, how long has she had these dogs? If they started a body count of victims of German Shepherds, I still probably wouldn't get rid of mine -unless she became violent.

I suspect somehow, that you would take reasonable steps to make sure your dog would not have the opportunity to kill someone. How does that make this woman's actions defensible ?

Other people's experiences don't count too much if I don't have clear, convincing evidence they aren't just a bunch of morons.
You have convincing evidence that this woman's behaviour was not stupid?

varwoche

30th June 2005, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady
There has been no evidence presented that the dogs were dangerous before the day in question.
Sounds like a semantic dodge. Not just evidence, but PROOF of danger had already occured that very day -- one of the dogs had already bitten the kid as I'm sure you are aware.
I have to say you have really lost me here. Pardon me for being glib and unclear. What I meant was, maybe we are a little too fixated on pets, and maybe humanity would be better served by directing our philanthropic efforts towards humans.

I've owned dogs; today we own two cats. Over the years, I've come to have qualms about the cost of owning pets given that I could save human beings from death and suffering with the money that pays for my pets care.

Skeptical Greg

30th June 2005, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by varwoche
Over the years, I've come to have qualms about the cost of owning pets given that I could save human beings from death and suffering with the money that pays for my pets care. [ Devils advocate ] And you haven't moved past the ' qualms ' state, to actually saving a human being or two from death and suffering ? [/ Devils advocate ]

varwoche

30th June 2005, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
[ Devils advocate ] And you haven't moved past the ' qualms ' state, to actually saving a human being or two from death and suffering ? [/ Devils advocate ] I acknowledge your question Diogenes but am going to decline to answer due to irrelevence, and because it furthers a derail that I started (pardon me for that).

Jas

30th June 2005, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What else do you need that 60 dead people from attacks from pit bulls?

You mean 60 dead people from what the report calls "pitbulls" (notice that they put that, and Huskies, in quotations - the two most misidentified breeds), based on who's identification? If they could say for sure that these dogs were pitbulls, and could account for all the mitigating factors, then the authors of the report would have concluded that pitbulls were the most lethal breed. When, in fact, they didn't.

Sandy M

30th June 2005, 02:09 PM

Hah! Took the quiz. Nailed it first try. But I have a Min Pin. If he chomps me, it isn't even likely to require a Band-Aid.

I have lots of friends with dogs that are "accused" of being Pit Bulls. One is a Staffordshire, the other is an AmStaff/Boxer mix, another is an American Bull Dog. All extremely gentle dogs. The mix lives on a horse ranch, and believe me, if he were aggressive with people OR other animals, he would be long gone. He was an "obedience school" drop out because..... he was too laid back. Totally obedient, but he wouldn't do the snappy "fetch, sit, present" bit - he just ambled over, retrieved the toy, ambled back and laid down in front of the handler, only remembering to sit and present when reminded.

As a Bay Area Resident (please don't hate me, RoadToad), I am appalled by this woman and so glad that charges have been filed. Dunno... but am I missing something? Wouldn't any RATIONAL, NORMAL person lock the DOG in the basement and leave the kid in the house. As for the "his time had come, "spare me! This was so totally preventable. But licensing and the like won't help - people like this will keep unlicensed dogs. And breed specific legislation is not going help - as the quiz points out - What Is A Pit Bull?

CFLarsen

30th June 2005, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Jas
You mean 60 dead people from what the report calls "pitbulls" (notice that they put that, and Huskies, in quotations - the two most misidentified breeds), based on who's identification? If they could say for sure that these dogs were pitbulls, and could account for all the mitigating factors, then the authors of the report would have concluded that pitbulls were the most lethal breed. When, in fact, they didn't.

In that case, you can never refer to any study ever again.

Ignore the 60 dead people if you like. If not the pit bulls, what killed them?

Aliens?

30th June 2005, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
In that case, you can never refer to any study ever again.

Ignore the 60 dead people if you like. If not the pit bulls, what killed them?

Large dogs.

Which may or may not have been pit bulls.

You see, vast majority of people can't identify most dog breeds reliably. But they "know" that pit bulls are the most dangerous dogs. So, when a large dog attacks someone, it obviously has to be a pit bull, because they are the dogs that kill people. See?

CFLarsen

30th June 2005, 02:48 PM

30th June 2005, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Pure speculation.

Do you have some hard facts?

I'll provide them as soon as you provide some hard facts on your speculation that there may be more armed hijackers than air marshalls.

As per my announcement. This is post is inappropriate as it is not discussing the issue of the thread and attempts to personalise the discussion rather then address the issue.

LeFevre

30th June 2005, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by LW
I'll provide them as soon as you provide some hard facts on your speculation that there may be more armed hijackers than air marshalls.

Quid pro quo at its best.

As per my announcement. This is post is inappropriate as it is not discussing the issue of the thread and attempts to personalise the discussion rather then address the issue.

crimresearch

30th June 2005, 03:03 PM

And in other news, giant trees are proven to be more aggressive than little saplings, because more people were killed by them...
:rolleyes:

CFLarsen

30th June 2005, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by LW
I'll provide them as soon as you provide some hard facts on your speculation that there may be more armed hijackers than air marshalls.

As per my announcement. This is post is inappropriate as it is not discussing the issue of the thread and attempts to personalise the discussion rather then address the issue.

LW,

Please provide your hard facts.

varwoche

30th June 2005, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I don't know if the Pits are really as dangerous as advertised Here's something I think we can all agree on: they are powerful dogs, even in the unlikely case (imo) they have better than average temperments as Jas has argued.

There are several breeds that I have reservations around children and strangers. Take rottweilers for instance. I have been closely acquainted with three of them. Two weren't merely "nice" -- I swear to Odin they were the most gentle dogs I ever met in my life. (I love dogs incidentally.) The third was a bit testy, however the jerk owner was in large part to blame. (It was a show dog that spent way too much time alone in a dog run.)

Despite my positive anecdotal experience, I do not believe rotties belong in a house with children or loose in public. Any dog is capable of snapping under certain circumstances. (Except, seemingly, the 2 rotties I mention.) In the case of pit bulls, various cousins of pit bulls, rotties, akitas, etc., that snap can and does have tragic consequences.

Jas, the reason that the supposed misidentification of pit bulls is not highly relevent in my view is because I don't believe that the breeds that are commonly confused with pit bulls belong in a house with children either -- for the same reasons. Also, bear in mind we're not just discussing a generic high-risk dog. This is a high-risk dog that had already bitten her kid earlier the same day. The prosecuter apparently agrees with me that the mother acted criminally by not either taking the kid with her, or else calling animal protection.

Jas and DragonLady, I fail to see what upside could possible offset the downside of pit bull ownership...

1) physically more capable of inflicting harm than most breeds
2) evidence they are prone to do moreso than other breeds (regardless if that evidence fails to convince you -- back to erroring on the side of safety)
3) special legal liability, actual and/or potential depending on jurisdiction
4) frightening friends and neighbors; maybe becoming a pariah in the neighborhood (even in the unlikely event the fears are unfounded, I do not consider it very sociable to frighten people unless there is a justifiable reason)

DragonLady

30th June 2005, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I don't know if the Pits are really as dangerous as advertised, (my suspicion is that there is misidentification, as has been stated, and there is an overreaction based upon the actions of a number of sociopaths), but you're correct here, Varwoche. When you have strong indication, as has been pointed out again and again, particularly that of the dogs in question themselves being agressive, you have NO excuse for these actions.

Thaere hasn't been any indications. The only evidence presented was the one earlier bite. For which Mom seperated the boy and the dogs.

You can't just make the facts of her behavior fit your ideas or fit your own previous experiences.

I'm sorry, but the facts are what they are. You can argue about the intent, and you can play word games all you like, but the boy died because his mother put greater value on the lives of the dogs than she did on her child. She's negligent.

Who is playing word games? If it seems like I have, I appologize. That is not my intent.

But no one has demonstrated (convincingly) that she put greater value on the dogs. She seperated the boy from them. She did not offer him for their lunch. She did not demand he take them for a walk or give one of them a bath. She did not leave boy & dogs alone together. She took a reasonable (although backward) measure to ensure they would remain seperate until she returned.

Edited to make more sense.

Jas

30th June 2005, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by LW
Large dogs.

Which may or may not have been pit bulls.

You see, vast majority of people can't identify most dog breeds reliably. But they "know" that pit bulls are the most dangerous dogs. So, when a large dog attacks someone, it obviously has to be a pit bull, because they are the dogs that kill people. See?

Thank you.

Originally posted by varwoche
Jas, the reason that the supposed misidentification of pit bulls is not highly relevent in my view is because I don't believe that the breeds that are commonly confused with pit bulls belong in a house with children either -- for the same reasons.

The problem is, that any medium to large dog that is seen as a threat is usually identified as a pitbull (with the exception of the ones that bear a strong resemblance to sheperds, or have blue eyes, in which case they're called a husky). It's not just bully breeds that are mistaken for pitbulls.

The phone calls our constables responded to all regarded pitbulls - on the phone. When they got there they got anything from Great Danes to Poodles. For example, my uncle has a Gordon Setter - most people think it's a long haired coonhood, a long hair dobie, or some sort of rottie mix. So if you don't trust breed commonly confused with pitbulls, well, you've eliminated most of them.

Also, bear in mind we're not just discussing a generic high-risk dog. This is a high-risk dog that had already bitten her kid earlier the same day.

I was never defending those dogs, I was referring to the APBT/Staffordshire's overall stability as a breed. If you look at my posts, at no point did I say that those dogs were safe, or could be rehabilited, or anything along those lines.

Jas

30th June 2005, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by varwoche
Jas and DragonLady, I fail to see what upside could possible offset the downside of pit bull ownership...

1) physically more capable of inflicting harm than most breeds

No more so than any other large, muscular breed. If you want a nasty bite, go for a breed that's designed to be good with their mouths. The worst bites (referring to stitches needed, and yes, this is anecdotal) I saw, were the result of retriever breeds.

2) evidence they are prone to do moreso than other breeds (regardless if that evidence fails to convince you -- back to erroring on the side of safety)

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Even though the supposed "evidence" fails to convince animal shelters, the AVMA, trainers, or anyone who works with animals (for the numerous reason cited above).

3) special legal liability, actual and/or potential depending on jurisdiction
4) frightening friends and neighbors; maybe becoming a pariah in the neighborhood (even in the unlikely event the fears are unfounded, I do not consider it very sociable to frighten people unless there is a justifiable reason)

Yes, the legal liability is a b*tch. However, the liability is higher due to miseducation and ignorance...

As far as becoming a pariah and scaring the neighbors, well, numerous things can cause that to happen. Perhaps it would be better to educate them.

**edited to make sense**

DragonLady

30th June 2005, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Would you say that this is a valid defense for any type of violent behavior?

" Shucks judge, I've never stabbed anyone before.. "

Who's playing word games?

That's a different thing, isn't it, Diogenes?

A more accurate analogy would be something like:

"Gee, Judge, I left the little girl home with Daddy because we've been married five years & he's never been violent before."

"But, didn't he spank her just hours before you left?"

"Yes, your honor. One swat on the butt because she kicked him in the face with her shoes on."

"Then you really had no indication he was going to decapitate her as soon as your back was turned?"

"No, sir."

She seemed to be informed enough to think she needed to lock the kid in the basement.

Yes. The "information" came in the form of a previous bite. We have no evidence any kind of reliable information was presented before that. And she took immediate steps to prevent further harm as soon as the bite occurred.

I suspect somehow, that you would take reasonable steps to make sure your dog would not have the opportunity to kill someone. How does that make this woman's actions defensible ?

What exactly are "reasonable steps"?

I can watch her for signs of aggression.

But it would be unreasonable to chain her in the yard for the rest of her life "just in case". It would be unreasonable to find her another home "just in case". It would be unreasonable to have her put down "just in case".

You have convincing evidence that this woman's behaviour was not stupid?

I do have questions.

I'd like to know whether the dogs were aggressive before that day.

I'd like to know why she left the house.

I'd also like to know why the boy felt his mother's orders to stay in the basement were just a suggestion -despite the shovel intended to force his compliance.

varwoche

30th June 2005, 04:49 PM

Jas, thank you for the points you make, even though the adamance doesn't seem even remotely sensible.

You overlooked the one question I posed to you: What's the upside?

correction: I didn't pose it in the form of a question until this post.

Jas

30th June 2005, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by varwoche
What's the upside?

Because they're wonderful dogs, and great with kids. People who have worked with them are aware of how stable and loving they are. When getting a dog, that was one of the few breeds I considered, given their behaviour at the shelter (which is easily one of the most stressful places you can have a dog), and from what my vet had to say.

Then I went and fell in love with a dalmatian :b

DragonLady

30th June 2005, 05:05 PM

Jas and DragonLady, I fail to see what upside could possible offset the downside of pit bull ownership...

Possible "upsides":

1) Protection in a bad neighborhood? I have no idea what her neighborhood is like, but most people I know keep a dog for an early warning system and with the expectation they will bite an intruder.

2) The price of pit bull puppies. I have no idea what they're worth...or even if she was breeding them on purpose. I really rather doubt she was, but it wouldn't surprise me if money was an incentive to allow them to breed.

3) A family companion -that is never too tired or busy to play, snuggle or listen. We keep our dog for no other reason than this.

1) physically more capable of inflicting harm than most breeds

I don't know. Pit bulls aren't very big. I'd say there are plenty of other breeds just as or more capable of nasy bites. I have to say it probably depends on the individual more than the breed.

2) evidence they are prone to do moreso than other breeds (regardless if that evidence fails to convince you -- back to erroring on the side of safety)

This is currently very much in dispute. And if I've had the dog a long time or am familiar enough with an individual I wouldn't let that kind of anecdotal evidence alone convince me. Nor would I get rid of a long-term pet just on the evidence presented by others.

3) special legal liability, actual and/or potential depending on jurisdiction

This exists with any dog. From special clauses in leases to licensing requirements, all dogs of every breed require some compliance legally and come with some liability.

4) frightening friends and neighbors; maybe becoming a pariah in the neighborhood (even in the unlikely event the fears are unfounded, I do not consider it very sociable to frighten people unless there is a justifiable reason)

I don't know...I can't remember ever being afraid of another person's dog just based on breed. Seeing one barking and lunging -sure. But not just seeing a particular size or color or the shape of the ears. And I once had neighbors who were afraid of a chihuahua...so I can't put much weight on that.

Ask me again, when the subject is a pet tiger or a grizzly bear.

varwoche

30th June 2005, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Jas
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Not that the supposed "evidence" fails to convince animal shelters, the AVMA, trainers, or anyone who works with animals (for the numerous reason cited above). I'm not sure if the double negative is intended. Are you contending that animal shelters, the AVMA, dog trainers, and anyone who works with animals are generally convinced that pit bulls are dangerous?

If you are contending the contrary, I'd like to see some evidence.

If this is your contention, I'd also like to see evidence as this would support my contention that it is irresponsible to have pit bulls (and certain other breeds) around children. And for which I will thank you for doing my legwork. ;)

varwoche

30th June 2005, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
The only evidence presented was the one earlier bite. Only?

schplurg

30th June 2005, 06:01 PM

Thaere hasn't been any indications. The only evidence presented was the one earlier bite.

How many times should a pitbull bite your child before you become overly concerned? My gawd I can't believe this.

She took a reasonable (although backward) measure to ensure they would remain seperate until she returned.

To me, in this situation, backward = wrong.

Jas and DragonLady, I fail to see what upside could possible offset the downside of pit bull ownership...

DragonLady:
Possible "upsides":

1) Protection in a bad neighborhood? I have no idea what her neighborhood is like, but most people I know keep a dog for an early warning system and with the expectation they will bite an intruder.

2) The price of pit bull puppies. I have no idea what they're worth...or even if she was breeding them on purpose. I really rather doubt she was, but it wouldn't surprise me if money was an incentive to allow them to breed.

3) A family companion -that is never too tired or busy to play, snuggle or listen. We keep our dog for no other reason than this.

1) Any dog can bark. That is usually enough to scare away an intruder. I've never expected my dog to bite anyone unless she was under attack herself. I've never owned a dog with the intent of it ever biting anyone, even in my own house.

2) Pitbull pups cost $. I do believe she was breeding intentionally....having a female dog in heat in your house is quite...messy. Knowingly having an unneutered male with her inside is a pretty obvious indication she wanted them to breed. Even an idiot would seperate them if not. What makes you doubt she wanted them to breed when all the evidence points the other way?

3) Me too. So why own a dog that has such dangerous potential?

I believe I've made a pretty clear case on why this lady is guilty of negligence already. I've seen no persuasive arguement against this at all, just some very farreaching "maybes" and "ifs". She admitted the earlier bite, she admitted the male was aggressive/protective of the bitch. She locked up her kid knowing he would try to escape. I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall.

I actually am wondering (no real eveidence) if she made up the whole "locked him in a basement with a shovel" story. I'd like to know how one can use a shovel to secure a door so that a dog walking by, or so a child banging on the door, couldn't dislodge it. Does this door open into the room, or outward? Most open in. This story is starting to sound a little silly to me. Be interesting to see what comes out of the investigation.

It seems inconsistent to go to such an extreme to keep a kid safe, while at the same time feeling comfortable enough to leave him alone with the dogs at all. "Typical Nicky, he didn't listen".

Isn't it negligence to barricade your child in a room while you're not at home anyways, regardless of why? What kind of a parent does this? What if the place caught fire? Why do you insist on defending her? Is it because of the biting incident you yourself experienced with your child? Are you worried that if she is found guilty that you too are guilty of negligence? Are you feeling guilt for this? I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm just trying to understand why you are insisting that this lady was not (or may not have been) negligent when, given the evidence at hand, she clearly was.

Skeptical Greg

30th June 2005, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
Who's playing word games?

Are you serious, or are you just playing Super Skeptic and giving this moron the benefit of the doubt?

If you think giving any dog the run of the house while locking your kid in the basement is o.k. , then I must suspect my suspicions mentioned earlier were without merit.

schplurg has covered it well.

If this woman is not a total idiot, then the story sounds really made up.. Oh, wait, she could still be an idiot anyway.

patchbunny

30th June 2005, 07:14 PM

For what it's worth to this discussion, the woman is being charged in the death of her son (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/24/MNG3JDEED81.DTL&hw=pit+bull+attack&sn=022&sc=209). I scanned the thread and didn't see it mentioned so I figured I'd bring it up.

Might as well also bring up mention of the latest pit bull attacks (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/28/BAdog28.DTL) occuring (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/26/state/n220436D22.DTL&hw=pit+bulls&sn=016&sc=215) in California (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/23/MNGRODDG2S1.DTL&hw=pit+bulls&sn=008&sc=304).

I now return you to your arguement.

DragonLady

1st July 2005, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by schplurg
How many times should a pitbull bite your child before you become overly concerned? My gawd I can't believe this.

One. And only one. And when that one bite ocurred, she took steps to prevent another.

To me, in this situation, backward = wrong.]

Obviously. But I don't see it as quite that cut-and-dried.

1) Any dog can bark. That is usually enough to scare away an intruder. I've never expected my dog to bite anyone unless she was under attack herself. I've never owned a dog with the intent of it ever biting anyone, even in my own house.

I never have, either. But I know trained attack dogs have been a thriving industry, and someone must be buying them. I have no idea if that was her intention; I'm just listing it as a possibility.

2) Pitbull pups cost $. I do believe she was breeding intentionally....having a female dog in heat in your house is quite...messy. Knowingly having an unneutered male with her inside is a pretty obvious indication she wanted them to breed. Even an idiot would seperate them if not. What makes you doubt she wanted them to breed when all the evidence points the other way?

I'm arguing that once they showed signs of aggression, she may have been too scared of them to attempt to seperate them or too convinced that after mating they would settle back down and be less problematic.

3) Me too. So why own a dog that has such dangerous potential?

As I said, I have no idea if that was a motivation for these people. I live in a very rural area -it takes a police officer or an ambulance 45 minutes to get here in an emergency. So I tend to look at things from the point of view of someone who may see a dog as a working animal, and self-defense may be one of the things it's expected to provide.
Driving around my neighborhood, I don't think there's a single dog that's scary or that seems overly aggressive. But I haven't really tested it. ;)

I believe I've made a pretty clear case on why this lady is guilty of negligence already.

And I don't entirely agree. I say she deserves the benefit of a doubt until all the facts are in.

I've seen no persuasive arguement against this at all, just some very farreaching "maybes" and "ifs".

Yes. I agree there are lots of "ifs" and "maybes" and "whys" in this topic. And until all the facts are in, no judgements should be made.

She admitted the earlier bite, she admitted the male was aggressive/protective of the bitch. She locked up her kid knowing he would try to escape.

Yes. Hardly the actions of a hardened criminal. She took the steps she took. And she took responsibility for her actions. She didn't deny her fears, didn't lie about his earlier injury, and didn't make up any stories (as far as we know) about what happened. She did what seemed right; and only hindsight tells us she was wrong. But being wrong does not equal being a criminal.

I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall.

[sigh] That's funny, I feel the same way. :)

I actually am wondering (no real eveidence) if she made up the whole "locked him in a basement with a shovel" story.

That's possible. And if she did, it would certainly sway my opinion.

I'd like to know how one can use a shovel to secure a door so that a dog walking by, or so a child banging on the door, couldn't dislodge it. Does this door open into the room, or outward? Most open in.

By sticking the head of it under the door knob, and anchoring the handle on the floor. It makes the door damn near impossible to open if it opens out. It's less effective if the door opens in. In that case, a chair would've worked better, but she probably didn't realise that. She might've just leaned the shovel crosswise across the door as a "reminder" he needed to stay in the basement. It wouldn't have kept him in, but it would probably keep the dogs out if they were normally able to open doors.

This story is starting to sound a little silly to me. Be interesting to see what comes out of the investigation.

I'm also interested in seeing how it turns out.

It seems inconsistent to go to such an extreme to keep a kid safe, while at the same time feeling comfortable enough to leave him alone with the dogs at all. "Typical Nicky, he didn't listen".

I would agree, if the boy was younger. At twelve, he should've understood the gravity of the situation, and done as he was told. He was old enough to be a willing and compliant participant in his own safekeeping.

Isn't it negligence to barricade your child in a room while you're not at home anyways, regardless of why? What kind of a parent does this? What if the place caught fire?

If it was not an absolute emergency, yes. That's why I really want to know why she left the house.

Why do you insist on defending her? Is it because of the biting incident you yourself experienced with your child? Are you worried that if she is found guilty that you too are guilty of negligence? Are you feeling guilt for this? I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm just trying to understand why you are insisting that this lady was not (or may not have been) negligent when, given the evidence at hand, she clearly was.

Hmmm.......

Well, I'll admit there's a small touch of that. Every person who has kids ends up with a list of things we've done wrong, mistakes we've made, and regrets that can't be changed. All we can do is try not to repeat them.

But that's not the basic crux of my problem with this topic.

----------

I had a l-o-n-g explanation of why this topic bugs me. But honestly, I think it warrants a seperate topic. I'll try to start one, either tonight or tomorrow.

DragonLady

1st July 2005, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
[B]Are you serious, or are you just playing Super Skeptic and giving this moron the benefit of the doubt?

(snip)

Yes. I thought I made that clear in my first post in this topic. I'm giving her the benefit of a doubt.

I'm not saying she was right, and I'm not saying she couldn't have found better ways to handle the situation.

I'm just arguing that she is not a criminal.

varwoche

1st July 2005, 02:29 AM

CFLarsen

1st July 2005, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by varwoche
This doesn't add up. These are fatalities. I think it's safe to assume that a vast majority of these dogs come into the possession of police departments or animal control officials, who in turn ID the dogs.

And obviously, the owner of the dog is going to be interviewed by officials.

These dogs aren't being ID'ed by random people off the street. In this light, this misidentification business seems overblown.

I think it is extremely safe to assume that all of these dogs come into the possession of police departments or animal control officials.

A dog that has killed, and is on the loose? Talk about panic in the 'hood!

You bet they are identified. Breed and all. Checked for rabies. Anything.

Darat

1st July 2005, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady
Who's playing word games?

That's a different thing, isn't it, Diogenes?

A more accurate analogy would be something like:

"Gee, Judge, I left the little girl home with Daddy because we've been married five years & he's never been violent before."

"But, didn't he spank her just hours before you left?"

"Yes, your honor. One swat on the butt because she kicked him in the face with her shoes on."

"Then you really had no indication he was going to decapitate her as soon as your back was turned?"

"No, sir."

Your analogy fails, a better analogy would be to say that the father had only ever previously chopped off one of the little girls arms.

A dog can attack someone in one way - by biting. A dog that has bit a person has shown that it will use its only weapon in an aggressive manner.

Any dog that bites someone (and I will exclude injured dogs from this) even once should be considered an aggressive dog that is a threat to people. My personal view goes one step beyond that and I believe any dog that has bitten someone should be immediately destroyed, no exceptions. (And yes I have had to make that terrible decision myself when one of my dogs attempted to bite someone, the person was very lucky that the dog didnâ€™t manage to carry the attack out. The same afternoon I took the dog to the vets to be killed.)

Skeptical Greg

1st July 2005, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady
Yes. I thought I made that clear in my first post in this topic. I'm giving her the benefit of a doubt.

I'm not saying she was right, and I'm not saying she couldn't have found better ways to handle the situation.

I'm just arguing that she is not a criminal.

Not finding a better way to handle life threatening situations, when it comes to our children is criminal. It's called criminal negligience.

pgwenthold

2nd July 2005, 12:39 PM

varwoche

2nd July 2005, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Jas
ATTS (http://www.atts.org/stats1.html) Interesting, thank you. I'm constantly on the lookout for hard data to interject into these debates. We could combine the ATTS data and the CDC data, do some analysis, and if we're lucky we learn something, and hopefully the exercise will be interesting regardless.

I've already imported the ATTS data into a relational database (and hope to get to the CDC data this weekend, hope being the operative word). In the ATTS data, the number of tests performed for a number of breeds is statistically inadequate. For instance, the 1 Boykin Spaniel passed and the 1 Cao De Fila De Sao Miguel failed.

If we eliminate the breeds with less than 200 tests, this cuts the list down to 28 breeds. There are 469 tests for American Pit Bull Terriers and 480 for American Staffordshire Terriers. (The breed with the most tests is Rottweiler with 4498.)

Also amongst the top 28 (in test count) are labs, shepards, huskies, retrievers, spaniels, etc. -- a good mix.

I'm going to wait a couple of days and see if there's any feedback before proceeding. (The reason for the "we" in the first paragraph is because I'm hoping for participation from Jas, Dragonlady or whoever.)

WildCat

2nd July 2005, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
All this talk about all these dangerous pit bulls gets me thinking, I can't say I've ever even seen a pit bull in real life. I see a lot of dobermans and an awful lot of rotweilers, among lots of others, but I just don't see a lot of pit bulls around. I would be shocked if all this supposed "pit bull" attacks are really pit bulls.
They're very popular in inner city neighborhoods, and easy to identify. They're small but extremely muscular dogs, w/ giant heads relative to their size. And many of the gangbangers who own them also fight them. Many of the other yahoos who own them, gangbangers or otherwise, think it's a macho dog to have and the meaner the better, thus the problems. The causes are more w/ the owners, not the dog. I've met many friendly pit bulls, raised by people who bought them for the right reasons.

Here's a good (http://www.realpitbull.com/ownership.html)pit bull site.

DragonLady

3rd July 2005, 10:00 AM

I'm going to wait a couple of days and see if there's any feedback before proceeding. (The reason for the "we" in the first paragraph is because I'm hoping for participation from Jas, Dragonlady or whoever.)

I'm game, but you'll have to explain to me how it works and what to do. :)

varwoche

3rd July 2005, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady
I'm game, but you'll have to explain to me how it works and what to do. :) Here's what I have in mind:

Keep me honest with my analysis. For instance, I'm about to focus on the 28 breeds with > 200 tests, however I may have sneakily ommitted #29 because it hurts my argument. (I don't intend to be sneaky, but you never know with anonymous internet personnas.)

You can request queries to further your own analysis and/or to challenge mine, and I'll post the results. For instance, you might ask "Of the breeds with >100 tests, what is the average test score and what is the average number of people killed". (Not a great example, but hopefully it conveys the idea.)

I'm not sure where I'm heading yet, but I do know I will need to know breed populations (or at least relative populations), preferably over time. If anyone knows where I can find this, please advise.

DragonLady

3rd July 2005, 11:19 AM

You can request queries to further your own analysis and/or to challenge mine, and I'll post the results. For instance, you might ask "Of the breeds with >100 tests, what is the average test score and what is the average number of people killed". (Not a great example, but hopefully it conveys the idea.)

Will this be on the 'net somewhere? That would be a GREAT utility for someone who wants to choose a dog.

So what's up with #29? And why does it hurt your argument?

DragonLady

4th July 2005, 09:22 AM

This article explains a bit more about what happened:

Mother Pleads Innocent (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/25/BAGPQDEQIR1.DTL)

So, in light of the fact the boy just didn't want to go with her, would you all still consider her negligent if she had locked up the dogs and left the boy free to roam the house?

If yes, what if he had let them out anyway?

Also, if yes, what if the house had caught fire? The boy could've escaped, but not the dogs. Would she still be negligent for allowing her animals to be burned to death?

I'm not trying to antagonize; I'm just really curious what you all think?

Darat

4th July 2005, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady
This article explains a bit more about what happened:

Mother Pleads Innocent (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/25/BAGPQDEQIR1.DTL)

So, in light of the fact the boy just didn't want to go with her, would you all still consider her negligent if she had locked up the dogs and left the boy free to roam the house?

No because if it is the case that the dog had already attacked someone it should have been destroyed.

Originally posted by DragonLady

If yes, what if he had let them out anyway?

The dog should not have been in the house (if it had already attacked someone) - it should have either have been in kennels whilst arrangements were made to kill it or it should have already have been killed.

Originally posted by DragonLady

Also, if yes, what if the house had caught fire? The boy could've escaped, but not the dogs. Would she still be negligent for allowing her animals to be burned to death?

I'm not trying to antagonize; I'm just really curious what you all think?

A dog is property a child is not, a human life is of utmost importance, a dogâ€™s life isn't.

Finally the fault this women made and what she should be punished for (if it is true) is for not removing the potential threat to her child immediately she knew it was a threat.

DragonLady

4th July 2005, 10:01 AM

Well, in light of the fact she left the boy just because he didn't want to go, I agree she is somewhat negligent.

I still don't know if I'd consider her criminally negligent.

And my questions were only intended to address the depth of her wrongdoing with respect to being "backward". That is, several people have pointed out that logically she should have locked the dogs up, and left the boy free.

But I don't really see that making much difference. To me, the fact she seperated them & attempted to keep them seperate is the main thing -the order she did it in, or the square footage assigned to each are trivial and unimportant.

Lisa Simpson

4th July 2005, 10:07 AM

She put more emphasis on the comfort and safety of the dogs. The dogs got the run of the house. Did the kid have food, water and a bathroom while she was gone?

It doesn't really matter if the kid wanted to stay home or not. She left him with a known danger. She was negligent.

CFLarsen

4th July 2005, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady
Well, in light of the fact she left the boy just because he didn't want to go, I agree she is somewhat negligent.

I still don't know if I'd consider her criminally negligent.

And my questions were only intended to address the depth of her wrongdoing with respect to being "backward". That is, several people have pointed out that logically she should have locked the dogs up, and left the boy free.

But I don't really see that making much difference. To me, the fact she seperated them & attempted to keep them seperate is the main thing -the order she did it in, or the square footage assigned to each are trivial and unimportant.

Absolutely not. She put the dogs above her son.

DragonLady

4th July 2005, 11:01 AM

Did the kid have food, water and a bathroom while she was gone?

Apparently. Another article says she left him with snacks.

A good point, though...if he didn't have a bathroom, that would make the situation more untenable.

She put more emphasis on the comfort and safety of the dogs. The dogs got the run of the house.

So you believe she would have been less negligent if she had done it the other way around?

It doesn't really matter if the kid wanted to stay home or not.

I'm inclined to agree, here. She didn't leave him for the reason I would've thought obvious -having to lead him past the very same dogs that had already bit him to get out the door. My dog always "rushes" to get out with us...even though she usually comes & goes as she pleases & has free run of the yard. So to me, that would've been more dangerous than leaving him. But apparently in this case that wasn't true. Or at least none of the articles I've seen mention it.

Lisa Simpson

4th July 2005, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady
So you believe she would have been less negligent if she had done it the other way around?

Yes. The dogs should have been locked up somewhere. In the basement. Chained up in the yard. Any place where they couldn't harm the kid again. She knew they were dangerous. That is the cutoff point. Anything she did after that point that didn't protect her child is negligent.

Where is the cutoff for you, Dragonlady? What point does it go from merely negligent to criminally negligent? I'm not asking to be mean, just curious.

LostAngeles

4th July 2005, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady
This article explains a bit more about what happened:

Mother Pleads Innocent (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/25/BAGPQDEQIR1.DTL)

So, in light of the fact the boy just didn't want to go with her, would you all still consider her negligent if she had locked up the dogs and left the boy free to roam the house?

If yes, what if he had let them out anyway?

Also, if yes, what if the house had caught fire? The boy could've escaped, but not the dogs. Would she still be negligent for allowing her animals to be burned to death?

I'm not trying to antagonize; I'm just really curious what you all think?

He "just didn't want to go" so she leaves him with a dangerous dog?

Hold on, let me check what the other options are.

"Nicky, you have to come with me. The dog is in heat and you know how he gets aggressive when this happens. He's already bit you and I don't want to see you hurt."

"No! I'm not going!"

"All right fine. I'll stay home then."

Hey, there's two.

She's negligent and in this situation, criminally so.

DragonLady

4th July 2005, 11:40 AM

What point does it go from merely negligent to criminally negligent?

Right now, I'm rethinking and trying to suss that out. All the news reports keep saying she left to do "errands"...but apparently none of the reporters have asked what those errands were.

I still think she took the single most important step -seperating the dogs from the boy.

But...the rest of it keeps getting murkier. And my "benefit of the doubt" is getting slimmer and slimmer.

First, why didn't she stay in the basement (family room) with the boy? When I put my son in his room, that seemed to make the most sense -he was safe there, the dog had never been allowed to spend time there, he had plenty of toys and books to keep him busy, and I was right-at-hand if he needed to come out. I think in my mind the house had dog-space and kid-space. I put the kid in the kid-space and put the dog in the dog-space and everything made sense.

But the comparison ends there; because I didn't even consider leaving the house. And my son was too young to even consider leaving behind.

What was so important that she had to leave the house?

Common sense says she left to find help of some kind of help with the situation at hand. As has been oft-discussed, the dogs were probably very strong and (by that time) scary even to her. I can't find fault with her for believing she needed help. If she left to buy crates or a muzzle or to find a strong male relative, I understand and sympathise. But if that wasn't her motive, I'm mystified.

It's slightly less important, if she really believed the boy was safe for the time she was gone. But it's still unreasonable that she left for just about any non-emergency reason. It just not reasonable that she HAD to go to the hairdresser. Or that she HAD to go to the bank, or just about anywhere else.

And other "emergency" reasons -while logical and possible- aren't really very likely. I really doubt there was nothing in the house for dinner. It's possible, but not very likely. It's possible she had to be in court or have emergency surgery...but again, not very likely. And the possibilities deteriorate to just plain silly (where's my tinfoil cap?) very quickly.

Jas

4th July 2005, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by varwoche
I'm not sure if the double negative is intended. Are you contending that animal shelters, the AVMA, dog trainers, and anyone who works with animals are generally convinced that pit bulls are dangerous?

Oops! I meant to say that most people who work with dogs are generally convinced that they are not dangerous. A few links:

http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/Truth03.htm]Furry ( [url) Friends[/URL] - This one has a good reference to a recent Supreme Court ruling

HSUS (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/hsus.html) postition onf BSL.

Villalobos Rescue Centre (http://www.vrcpitbull.com/volunteer.htm)

From the site (this is more about the number of pitbulls in urban centres):
The Pit Bull population has now risen to 40% of all the dogs in the 12 shelters. THAT MEANS THAT ALMOST HALF OF THE ENTIRE LOS ANGELES DOG POPULATION IS PITS OR PIT MIXES! It's heartbreaking.

Approximately 10 Pit Bulls are brought in each day to each shelter. That's 120 Pit Bulls a day. Most are strays tossed out like dirty laundry. At the end of a week the total comes to 840 Pit Bulls. According to Animal Control records, only about 2 Pit Bulls a week get adopted.

News Story (http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2905501&nav=168XKCXa)

Statistically, pit bulls usually rank number one in dog bites nationally, but defenders say that's because there are so many more pitbulls than any other dogs. It's certainly true at the Lied Shelter where up to 60-percent of the dogs are pits or pit mixes.

...
Despite the best efforts of the shelter to adopt out pit bulls, the numbers are so great that hundreds become death row dogs and are euthenized. But it doesn't have to be this way. Dog trainer, Larry Grisson said, "I've got a lot of pit bulls in my classes. They're outstanding."

Howver, I have to go out on lunch, so I'll get some more links when I come back.

Jas

4th July 2005, 02:45 PM

The AVMA's position (http://www.pitbullpress.com/ARTICLES/BSL.AVMA.html) (I believe I posted this actual study earlier, but it was ignored).

San Francisco SPCA (http://www.pitbullpress.com/ARTICLES/BSL.SPCA.html)

The opinion of some trainers (http://www.pitbullpress.com/ARTICLES/JAWS.html)

Adopt-A-Dog/Stamford Pound (http://www.pitbullpress.com/ARTICLES/MANSBEST.html)

The above are from Pit Bull Press (http://www.pitbullpress.com/ARTICLES/MANSBEST.html)

Animal Alliance of Canada (http://www.brok.ca/pdf%20files/AACPressRelease.pdf)

CMVA (http://canadianveterinarians.net/ShowText.aspx?ResourceID=65) CFHS (http://www.cfhs.ca/GeneralInfo/Media/indexpbulls.htm)

More from the NCAC (http://www.brok.ca/pdf%20files/NationalCompanionAnimalCoalition.pdf)

OSPCA (http://www.ospca.on.ca/libr_pr_2004_Oct28.html)

OVMA (http://www.brok.ca/pdf%20files/OVMAMediaRelease.pdf)

Toronto Humane Society (http://www.torontohumanesociety.com/inthenews/ban.html)

Authoritative organizations such as the Canadian Kennel club (CKC), American Kennel Club (AKC), The Canadian Safety Council, American and Canadian Veterinarian Medical Associations, Center for Disease Control, have clearly stated in their conclusions to their bite studies, that breed bans simply do nothing to prevent dog bites or fatalities. According to the American Veterinarian Medical Association: "Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite."

Above quote from here. (http://www.rottclub.ca/bsl_article.html)

Essentially, if pitbulls were a dangerous breed, don't you think that the American or Canadian animal authorities (humane societies, veterinary associations, or breed clubs), would have drawn that conclusion?

DragonLady

4th July 2005, 06:37 PM

Okay; I concede. She is/was criminally negligent.

I hate to condemn parents. I really, really do. And I hate it even more when the parent has lost
a child. And I hate it even more when they've lost one under circumstances that leave them forever questioning themselves and forever wondering how they could've
prevented it.

Throughout this topic, I kept looking at our children, and our dogs
-past and present. I kept thinking about the way family
dogs are expected to behave. They're supposed to be ever-patient, ever-gentle, ever-tolerant. They're expected to put up with everything - little tots pulling their ears, little boys pretending their horses, and little girls dressing them in old clothes and smelly hats. I kept looking over my computer and seeing my daughter use our dog for an extra pillow while she plays video games. The dog just lies there, twitching her ears whenever something explodes on the screen. This afternoon I sat and watched a movie with my son. The dog served him as a blanket. She's so big her feet were hanging off the back of the sofa while her head was hanging off the front, nose almost touching the carpet. She literally covered his body from neck to knee -and stayed there, all snuggled up and without moving for over an hour. We ask these dumb animals tobe closer to saints than people ever are.

I've been wondering why Mom left the boy at home. That didn't make sense to me. And I just kept coming up with excuses; excuses which got lamer and lamer. I kept trying to put myself in her shoes, and trying to figure out what would make me leave my son at home with those dogs. But I also kept thinking that it could never apply to me, in my situation.
I live too far out in the country, and have for years now. There isn't anywhere I could go, and nothing I could do within a reasonable time period. I had to keep reminding
myself that she lived in the city and everything was close by for her -a police station, a vet's office, a pet supply store, an animal shelter...whatever she needed.

So, my experience worked against me, and I failed to ask the right question.

This afternoon, I started from the top, and went through her fateful steps in my mind. One at a time, starting with the first bite. I kept picturing her, putting on a band-aid, telling the boy to stay in the family room. I kept picturing her telling him that she HAD to leave, and arguing with him because he wanted to stay, then finally agreeing to let him stay. But I kept hitting a snag -that shovel.

Where did she get the shovel? And why a shovel?

I own three shovels. And I've just bought every one of them since I moved into this house from the apartment we were in before. I didn't own a shovel then, because I didn't need one.
And in an apartment -especially with four people- every extra item that isn't needed is a pain in the ass. So why did she have it? And where did she keep it? If she kept it for digging holes, then she must have a yard. And if she has a yard, and even if she wanted to keep them inside while she was there, there's no excuse for leavingthe dogs in the house while the boy was there alone.

So, I started re-reading, and looking for any mention of a yard of any kind. I didn't find any. But I did find a small fact I had completely overlooked. In fact, I think I read it four
times, before it smacked me upside the head (so to speak). ;) When I noticed it, all my doubts evaporated. All the "ifs" the "ands" and the "buts" disappeared in a cloud of
indefensibility.

Nicholas was dead when his mother returned from her errands two hours later.
(http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/25/BAGPQDEQIR1.DTL) (emphasis mine)

TWO HOURS LATER??? She was gone for two whole freakin' hours???

I've been arguing the boy should've stayed in his room. But two hours? That's a completely unrealistic expectation. No twelve year old boy can be expected to pay attention or remember what's going on for two hours. That's just nuts.

So, I concede. No matter why she left; no matter how much she trusted the dogs, her son, her horoscope or the Gods, two hours was too long to leave him alone in that situation.

And I believe any reasonable person would know that. And that means she was indeed criminally negligent.

Sorry for the choppy text. My mouse keeps dying, so I had to compose this in notepad and then paste.

Darat

5th July 2005, 12:48 AM

Dragonlady - good to see how you've continued to think about the matter it and come to reconsider your conclusions, thatâ€™s admirable.

Just one final point to make: I've been arguing about this matter more or less as if it was a hypothetical incident. It could be that there are very relevant facts that are not being reported so whilst from the reports I've read I think it is right that she faces prosecution there could be some mitigating circumstances.

Anyway itâ€™s been fun and interesting to argue with you.

DragonLady

5th July 2005, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Darat
Dragonlady - good to see how you've continued to think about the matter it and come to reconsider your conclusions, thatâ€™s admirable.

Yeah.... Well.... It's the first time I've ever been wrong.... :p

Just one final point to make: I've been arguing about this matter more or less as if it was a hypothetical incident. It could be that there are very relevant facts that are not being reported so whilst from the reports I've read I think it is right that she faces prosecution there could be some mitigating circumstances.

Yes; we have to rely on the information that's available. We have to admit that all of our judgements and conclusions may be flawed because the information we work with may be wrong. Journalists misquote, editors take out mundane facts to shorten the stories and make them more sensational, and the police often withhold information.

But as long as we're all arguing from the same page, I don't think that causes much trouble.

Anyway itâ€™s been fun and interesting to argue with you.

I've enjoyed this, because the topic never deteriorated into a name-calling brawl or a political platform or anyone's soapbox.

Lots of people brought up excellent points - and I appreciated that nearly everyone took the time to really read and see the issues. Even if none of us had ever agreed. ;)

varwoche

5th July 2005, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by varwoche
I've already imported the ATTS data into a relational database (and hope to get to the CDC data this weekend, hope being the operative word). In the ATTS data, the number of tests performed for a number of breeds is statistically inadequate. For instance, the 1 Boykin Spaniel passed and the 1 Cao De Fila De Sao Miguel failed.

If we eliminate the breeds with less than 200 tests, this cuts the list down to 28 breeds. There are 469 tests for American Pit Bull Terriers and 480 for American Staffordshire Terriers. (The breed with the most tests is Rottweiler with 4498.)

Also amongst the top 28 (in test count) are labs, shepards, huskies, retrievers, spaniels, etc. -- a good mix.

I'm going to wait a couple of days and see if there's any feedback before proceeding. (The reason for the "we" in the first paragraph is because I'm hoping for participation from Jas, Dragonlady or whoever.) Dragonlady, seeing as you have changed your position (not something I'm used to), are you (or anyone) still interested in analyzing the hard data? My interest in the topic is not sufficient to sustain this as a solo effort.