Pondering the Pitbulldenialista
February 28, 2013
Fascinating.
The dog botherers always insist the dog attacks are due to “bad owners”. And that presumptively “good owners” will never have a dog that attacks or kills anyone.
We’ll leave aside their denialism about their own doggy’s noninjurious but threatening behavior and the inherent circularity of their argument for now.
The interesting point is what it takes to be a “good” owner. You have to train and “socialize” the dog. Control it. Keep it in the right circumstances. Train toddlers how to “approach it properly”. Leash it. Lock the gate. Etc. never let down your vigilance for one little second.
What is all of this but a frank admission that these alleged domesticated animals are INHERENTLY dangerous to other citizens? If they weren’t, the only problem would be “bad owners” who actively train the dog to aggress.
DrugMonkey 
February 28, 2013 at 7:27 am
so the logical conclusion is that all social (trainable) animals that could be inherently capable of human-harming violence should not be kept in a domesticated relationship with humans?
except for humans themselves, of course. us and our stupid right to exist.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 7:34 am
If you want actual resources on learning about pitbulls and other “dangerous” breeds, I have them. If you prefer to ignore things like media bias in reporting dog attacks, correlations of dog bites with poverty and lack of training and socialization (and please, don’t put that in quotes like it’s some bizarre concept in dog training – it isn’t), etc., then that’s your choice, but your opinions on this topic are NOT credible. And yes, children need to be taught how to approach ALL dogs – I can’t count the number of times kids have run up to my dogs and tried to grab them. Not a good idea, no matter what breed the dog is! (And please note I said tried – I don’t allow it, for obvious reasons. But why is it up to me to control other people’s kids?)
I could go on, but I have the idea it’s just going to fall on deaf ears, so why waste my time?
I do know, though, your posts on this topic are driving me away from reading your blog. And no, I’m not a pitbull owner. Never have been, never will be. I don’t like the breed, just like I don’t like the vast majority of the 400+ breeds that exist today. But that’s due to actual traits of the breed, not the hysteria surrounding them.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 8:03 am
I notice you’ve failed to address the point here KB. Are agreeing with the conclusion?
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 8:05 am
jipkin-
It is not “could be”. These good/bad owner arguments are stating that dogs inherently require training and “proper socialization” to *not* pose a threat.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 8:20 am
What point? That training and socialization are required? Yep, agree 100%. That certain breeds require more training and vigilance than others? Agree with that too.
That pitbulls are somehow uniquely dangerous in the dog world? Nope. Sorry.
There are numerous things that go into creating a dangerous dog. Breed is the most inconsequential of them.
But this has been covered by other comments in other posts on this topic, and you seem to be disregarding them. Why? Why the irrationality on this topic? Why the lack of research? Why the reliance on media coverage, instead of actual data?
I’ve offered resources to you. I note you’d rather challenge me that to accept them, but I’ll provide a starting place anyway.
http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/
Great site that goes into detail about the “stats” surrounds dog bites, and especially the media bias in reporting them.
One last question: why do you keep putting socialization in scare quotes?
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 8:34 am
What point? That training and socialization are required? Yep, agree 100%. That certain breeds require more training and vigilance than others? Agree with that too.
and is this not a statement that these lifestyle choices are inherently a danger to citizens?
There are numerous things that go into creating a dangerous dog.
You can’t have it both ways. If a dangerous dog needs to be created then they are not inherently dangerous and therefore there is no requirement for training, socialization, vigilance, etc to keep them from ripping off a kids face or killing a grannie. And the only dog attacks that there are should be clearly attributable to overt training for aggression (and for pulling down a horse and rider…how does that work exactly?) rather than neglectful disinterest. Which is it?
I’ve offered resources to you. I note you’d rather challenge me that to accept them,
What you and your cotravellers fail to grasp is that I am quite familiar with them and the arguments being advanced. They have essentially nothing* to do with the points that I raise. Points which you fail to address because you are off to the races about breed-specific distractions to avoid grappling with the main issue. Why should toddlers and grannies be at risk for severe injury, maiming and death because of your lifestyle preference to own a compensatory dog?
*save the acute demonstration of the irrational insanity and reality denialism of dog botherers that is.
One last question: why do you keep putting socialization in scare quotes?
why would you care one way or another about my punctuation choices?
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 9:11 am
You seem to be (purposely?) missing the points here, and in other posts on this topic.
Let me say it again: pitbulls are no more inherently dangerous than any other large breed of dog. Large dog breeds are “inherently” more dangerous than small dog breeds simply due to size. The lack of training and socialization, among other factors is what creates a dangerous dog.
“These good/bad owner arguments are stating that dogs inherently require training and “proper socialization” to *not* pose a threat.”
Yes. That’s it exactly. Dogs need proper training and socialization to not pose a threat. All dogs. All breeds. The severity of the threat, of course, differs between breeds, but, once again, that’s due to size, not breed.
Why do you question the fact that training and socialization are required? Have you done ANY research on dogs and dog training? Any reputable dog trainer or breeder will go on and on and on about proper socialization of puppies. A puppy obtained from a breeder that does not socialize the pups, by an owner that does not then train and further socialize the dog, is going to be a dangerous dog, IRREGARDLESS OF BREED.
“why would you care one way or another about my punctuation choices?”
Because your punctuation choices are done to make a point, no? If I may quote you: “You do realize that quotation marks have a purpose, right my knee jerking friend?”. So, I ask again: what is your purpose in choosing to put socialization quotes, like it’s some bizarre concept?
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 9:28 am
Pit bulls, aka American Staffordshire terriers, are acquired for protection, i.e. to guard their owners and their owners’ property.
They win a lot of dogfights, both formally arranged, and spontaneous.
Riding my bike, I’ve observed that they range from frightening (glad that animal is contained behind a chain link fence, but even so, this pass-by is unpleasant) to friendly.
I subscribe to the theory that dogs have innate tendencies and they also respond to their owners’ personalities. For example, Steve Kimberly put me up, giving me an attic room, on a bare mattress, which was “owned” by his German shepherd. It freaked her out that a stranger was on her bed. It took a few nights for us to figure out there was room for both of us. The first couple nights she slept on the hard floor, and there was strong tension between us. I purposely took only one-half the mattress, and invited her to take the other half. Night three, she decided that sleeping on the mattress, shared, was more comfy than sleeping on the hard floor.
Some time after that, she put her paws on me, I put my arm on her.
What do I know? My wife and I co-slept with our children in the 70’s and 80’s. We first tried the crib thing, as that was expected. But it didn’t really work that well. Babies and young children sleeping between Mom and Dad, the kids slept better, no middle-of-the night crying, which meant that we parents slept better.
I remember jogging in Dunthorpe, OR, and this Chesapeake Bay Retriever came out to challenge me. I stood him down. Then I saw him disappear, and observed some furious tree shaking, then the dog emerged with a sapling tree, and presented me with one end.
I pretty quickly figured out he wanted to play, “This is my (16 foot) stick, do you want to try taking it from me?” Of course I “took the bait”. Dogs aren’t that smart, I won, and and then I javelined it down the road. He retrieved it and re-presented it for another tug of war. Then again, and again.
Chessies are reputed to be unfriendly to people that aren’t their masters. I don’t know.
I have neighbors whose dogs start barking whenever I go outside. They bark at 6 AM whenever other neighbors jog.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 9:37 am
As someone who doesn’t care for barking, poop on my lawn, or bites of any severity on toddlers, I usually ignore the pitbull talk when I lurk on this blog. I do hope that you keep your Yorkiepoo either contained on your property or on leash. It also might be a good idea to keep it under close supervision around toddlers.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 9:50 am
I like dogs. My problem is with dog owners. About 1/3 are great. About 1/3 are negligent. About 1/3 are hazards to themselves and others. We should have a special place where that last 1/3 could live with each other and their dogs. (We could call it “Oklahoma.”)
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 10:00 am
Pit bulls are bred/engineered to be vicious and violent. Can’t go against genetics. They should be banned.
Going by the “logic” that dogs need to be “trained” to be harmless, does that mean that I can bring my pet tiger (but hey he’s trained and socialized to be friendly and harmless) to social events?
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 10:15 am
Well, kids need to be trained and socialized too, as for example PLS’s post about toddlers biting each other might remind you.
And when parents don’t do that job, and their kids get arrested, I don’t sit around thinking, “Exterminate!”
I think, “Wish we had better social services/ safety net/ schools / personal responsibility” etc etc.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 10:31 am
“Going by the “logic” that dogs need to be “trained” to be harmless, does that mean that I can bring my pet tiger (but hey he’s trained and socialized to be friendly and harmless) to social events?”
There is a between domesticated breeds and “tamed” animals.
There’s “logic” for you.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 10:55 am
“why is it up to me to control other people’s kids”
Because YOU are the one walking around with a dangerous animal.
You have some responsibility to keep your dog’s teeth away from my child’s body, even if my child is interested in your stupid dog. Just like you have a responsibility to keep your car away from my child’s body. Presumably, you drive more slowly when you see children playing near the street. (Or maybe you don’t, in which case you’re an asshole.) In the same way, when children are nearby you should keep your dog close at hand and be ready to control your dog if unwanted interaction arises.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 10:59 am
to that earlier crush of DM, well done KB….well done….esp that wonderful quote on punctuation!!
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 11:10 am
And when parents don’t do that job, and their kids get arrested, I don’t sit around thinking, “Exterminate!”
When nobody wants to take care of a kid do we euthanize it? no. shelters euthanize unwanted dogs by the truckload. again, humans have independent rights, dogs do not. it is not even remotely the same.
There is a [difference?] between domesticated breeds and “tamed” animals.
What is a wild-caught parrot and, apart from trafficking issues, does it fall under the tamed animal clause? What about the garter snake or frog some kid catches and keeps as a pet?
So, I ask again: what is your purpose in choosing to put socialization quotes, like it’s some bizarre concept?
It sounds like you’ve made plenty of assumptions about my purpose so what matter what I say about it? It’s a concept deployed by dog botherers that I find inaccurate and misleading.
is going to be a dangerous dog, IRREGARDLESS OF BREED.
So you are endorsing my point. Dogs are inherently dangerous. Good, we’re making some headway back toward reality shores.
pitbulls are no more inherently dangerous than any other large breed of dog.
The evidence simply does not support this idiotic notion. There are tons of breeds of the size of a pitbull and larger. Yes, some are probably just as capable and some are just as liable to cause mayhem. But there is no way in hell all of them are equally capable and liable to cause mayhem. And since we don’t have prospective controlled studies, your evidence is just as subject to criticism as mine. In a discussion of what may be we are best to stick with what actually is. And what is, right now, at this point in time of these here United States, pitbulls are overrepresented in ripping the faces off toddlers and killing grannies. Add another small handful of the available large breeds and you pretty much have the whole problem covered.
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19644273
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475022
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 11:52 am
Some dogs are more prone to attack than others. You have to figure out what they are doing.
when I lived in Kauai, this 3-pack of Dobies hassled me me when I used to take the garbage can down the hill for pickup. Do you think I liked it?
I did “Big Bear” routine. They hated it. I hated it.
But I had to take the garbage can down the hill.
My son was bitten by a pit bull on a jog. I didn’t teach him how to stand down dogs. This is an art.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 11:57 am
“What is a wild-caught parrot and, apart from trafficking issues, does it fall under the tamed animal clause? What about the garter snake or frog some kid catches and keeps as a pet?”
None of those are domesticated breeds. Do you know what is meant by domesticated vs. tamed? These are fairly well-defined concepts…
“It sounds like you’ve made plenty of assumptions about my purpose so what matter what I say about it? It’s a concept deployed by dog botherers that I find inaccurate and misleading.”
Way to not answer the question! Slow clap.
“So you are endorsing my point. Dogs are inherently dangerous. Good, we’re making some headway back toward reality shores”
Yes. All breeds. Hence the need for training and socialization. Glad we agree!
“The evidence simply does not support this idiotic notion.”
Sigh.
Okay, where were all the dangerous pitbulls in the 50s? The 60s? The 70s and 80s? Why were their spots on the “dangerous breed” list taken over by other breeds (this has been pointed out to you before). Could it be, just possibly, because of the type of owner these breeds, in sequence, become popular with? Are you willing to concede that the owner (and breeder) has some responsibility over the temperament of the dog? Because otherwise, every member of that species would be just as dangerous as the untrained one. And this is patently false. Once again, and for the last time, there is a stronger correlation between dog bites and things like poverty levels, access to affordable vet care, lack of training, home environment, etc., than between dog bites and breed. Every reference you have cited does not take these into account.
There are clear, well-known indicators on what makes a dog dangerous. Breed is the least of these. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? If you killed each and every pitbull today, there would still be dog bites and fatalities. There would be a new breed to take over the top spot, just like dobermans took over from German shepherds, and rotties took over from dobes, and pitbulls took over from rotties.
It’s not about the breed. It’s about the individual dogs.
To Grumble:
“Because YOU are the one walking around with a dangerous animal.
You have some responsibility to keep your dog’s teeth away from my child’s body, even if my child is interested in your stupid dog. Just like you have a responsibility to keep your car away from my child’s body. Presumably, you drive more slowly when you see children playing near the street. (Or maybe you don’t, in which case you’re an asshole.) In the same way, when children are nearby you should keep your dog close at hand and be ready to control your dog if unwanted interaction arises.”
If I ran up to you, grabbed you by the ears, put my face in yours and started screaming, what would you do?
Would it make a difference if I was 5 times your size?
Would it make a different if, while I was running toward you, you put your hands out to wave me away, shook your head, and kept saying “no no no no no”?
Because that’s the situation dogs get put in. And yet, it’s amazing just how FEW dogs bites there actually are. And yes, I do slow down when I see kids by the road, but at the same time, I expect their parents to be teaching them it’s not okay to play in traffic.
Anyhow, I’m done here. You aren’t listening, you haven’t been listening, you cannot be convinced that maybe, just maybe, there is something other than breed that is responsible for dog bites (even though many people have said the same things I’m saying). Your lack of knowledge on dogs and dog training make me wonder why you seem to think you are even qualified to speak on this topic. Id’ be like me blogging about the medical field, based on what I had read in the media.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 11:58 am
Pit bulls are EXCELLENT at scaring away annoying people. This, in and of itself, is enough reason for them to be spared BSL.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Hmmm
So this is a case study/personal experience
I grew up with coon hounds. Piles of them. These were trained dogs, in that they were trained to follow and tree a certain creature. They slept outside and jumped on people who came to visit and generally made a racket barking all of the time, but not leash trained or obedience trained.
As a young child I and friends played basically unsupervised for hours with these dogs. We also slept our afternoon naps in a pile of furry dogness.
There was no fear of these dogs… not cause they were socialized and trained to not attack children or any other creature but because they just didn’t.
A full grown pack of coonhounds certainly has the physical ability to do the damage reported in the statistics above… but I’m not reading that in the headlines.
Many have commented that there is a media bias in reporting pit attacks over other dog attacks… well… wouldn’t that mean that there are even more dog attacks total?? Shouldn’t that mean that the numbers reported in many of the sources linked above are deceptively low?
That would be more evidence for stricter control of dog ownership regardless of breed? It wouldn’t mean that pits are less dangerous.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 12:09 pm
“Irregardless?” If I had a blog I’d immediately ban the IP of any subliterate fuckhose who used that non-word.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Yeah…because fuckhose is a great way to show off your superior literacy. Nice.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 12:14 pm
It is crude but not illiterate. Perhaps you don’t understand the distinction.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Interesting SaV, interesting.
Say… Just for clarity, which useage of “coon” is that and/or what “creature” were they treeing?
Lady Day- did you switch sides?
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 12:41 pm
DM
by coon I mean racoon.
Until you asked that (and I subsequently googled it) I wasn’t aware it could mean anything else.
Yikes… sooooo did not mean the alternative.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 12:48 pm
The dog-fighting culture (and the douchebag poseurs who want to be seen to be associated with it) are the reason that pit bulls are so popular and so liable to be involved in attacks. That is not an argument for or against banning pit bulls, but I would note that there is no shortage of breeds that could be co-opted for this purpose, and would be in the face of a pit bull ban.
But clearly, cops should be focusing on dog fighting, euthanizing the animals and heavily fining all (human) participants. Make this culture go away, and careless breeding of dangerous dogs will go way down.
The problem with any solution that involves public resources or political will is that it is not enough that pit bulls be “inherently” dangerous (which this discussion reveals to be largely a semantic distinction), but whether they are prevalent and particularly dangerous enough relative to all the other stupid shit other people do that we want the government to protect us from. They aren’t.
Teach your kids about dogs.
Go for the eyes.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Go for the eyes. Good advice for all sorts of dangerous predators.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 2:21 pm
This is actually an interesting new tack, for those who bother to read it. Is there a tacit admission of inherent agression in a breed when “bad owners” are blamed?
As to the argument often raised that “you cant ban pitbulls cuz who defines pitbulls??? what is a breed?” that’s a trivial matter. If you are splitting hairs with the animal cops, you probably know you have a pitbull.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Is there a tacit admission of inherent agression in a breed when “bad owners” are blamed?
Not necessarily. Conceptually it is possible that said “bad owners” are explicitly training their dogs to attack small children, grannies, innocent Cockapoos and now, apparently, riding horses.
If you are splitting hairs with the animal cops, you probably know you have a pitbull.
Word.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 2:34 pm
“And what is, right now, at this point in time of these here United States, pitbulls are overrepresented in ripping the faces off toddlers and killing grannies. Add another small handful of the available large breeds and you pretty much have the whole problem covered.”
And certain “breeds” of homo sapiens in these here United States are also overrepresented in violent crimes against other members of their species. What is your solution for each of these problems DM?
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 2:38 pm
H. sapiens doesn’t have “breeds”, WS.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 2:54 pm
@DM: I’ve always been a pit bull supporter.
If it were my blog, I’d be more concerned with the number of people killed by drones or wars, instead. Seems like humans need to figure out how to calm our own (innate?) aggressive killer tendencies. Just sayin’.
So, how about that sequestration? Looks like it will be happening, unfortunately.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 2:54 pm
I posted this on the other thread, but it warrants a reposting. We’re all scientists here, so maybe people should start looking at the published literature
From wiki (ok I am lazy, but there are references):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull
“A 9-year (1979–88) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks in which breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%).[31] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[32] A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (28.6%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.[33]
A 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45.4%).[34] Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were most often involved in these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) attacks were attributed to pit bulls. All other dogs combined accounted for the remaining 65% of attacks.[35] In 44.8% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim’s family.[35] The authors state:
Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites.[35]
However, several concerns about the reliability of this study’s data, its conclusions drawn, its methodology, and its use of citations were raised in a later letter to the editor of Annals of Surgery.[36]
One 5-year (2001–05) review of dog attack victims admitted to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia determined that pit bull terriers were implicated in more than half of bites where breed was identified. Of the 551 patients treated, breed was identified in 269 cases. Of these 269 patients, 137 (50.9%) were attacked by pit bulls.[37] The authors write:
the overwhelming number of bites involving pit bull terriers in this study and others certainly has some degree of validity when it comes to identifying bite-prone breeds. Pit bull terriers, German shepherds, and Rottweilers were the offending breeds implicated in our study and have accounted for the majority of dog bites according to other investigators.[37]
One review of the medical literature found that pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds were involved in between 42 and 45% of dog attacks.[38] Fatalities were most often reported in children, with 70% of victims being under the age of 10.[38] ”
Bottomline, most of the published work reiterates the following point:
1) Pitbulls cause about 40% of dog-related injuries.
2) Pitbulls are twice as likely to attack unprovoked than other dogs.
3) Almost half of the reported cases are pitbulls belonging to the family. So much for “socialization”
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 2:57 pm
AND… I am amused by the comments on this board from pit bull defenders, frequently by suggesting analogous treatment between dogs and humans.
I’m no biologist, but dogs are NOT humans. Different standards apply.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 3:12 pm
“Breeds” “Race” “Ethnicity” “Heritage” I assumed you could make the connection. But let me guess, my comparison is “deeply flawed and ignorant.”
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 3:24 pm
@WS: To dates, subsets of humans have not been methodically selectively bred with the a priori intent to obtain specific sets of divergent morphological, sensory, and behavioral characteristics.
The extreme morphological and behavioral diversity of Canis lupus familiaris (more than for almost any other single species) is a direct consequence of such a selective breeding program.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 3:24 pm
In other words, I think you’re being willfully obtuse.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 4:23 pm
Dogs mostly do what their owners want them to do. Train them, loves and kisses, take them out. I bike-rode in a dog park a couple years ago, in SF County . The unleashed dogs were doing fine.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Thanks for the tip Spiny. But in case you missed it, DM pointed out that pit bulls are overrepresented among dog breeds in violent attacks on humans. Therefore, presumably he would like to see some action taken specifically regarding this breed. I simply asked what action he would like to see taken for both dogs and the comparable situation for human beings.
BTW, I agree with you about “irregardless.” I hate combo words like that or “ginormous,” but they are now in the dictionary, so what can you do.
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 7:42 pm
Are you making some point about unneutered males, WS?
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 9:19 pm
I’ve enjoyed this blog for many years, but after two of these tiresome pitbull articles in succession, I think we’ve finally jumped the shark here.
Anyone want to recommend a new science blog for me?
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 9:35 pm
“Anyone want to recommend a new science blog for me?”
http://www.concerntroll.com
LikeLike
March 1, 2013 at 4:42 am
The whole discussion of “domesticated” is amusing. Indeed, there are parts of the world where parrots, snakes, and non-human primates are considered domesticated. Hell, an octopus is smarter and better trained than many students I have taught in non-majors biology. What does domesticated mean? To some people it means trained to attack strangers, to others it means not biting children.
Part of the underlying issue here is akin to gun control: the rights of people to own guns or dogs or train them anyway they want vs. the rights of people (especially those small pesky ones under 4′ tall) to be free of danger from aforementioned guns and dogs. Even if 99.99999% of dog and gun owners are responsible, and neither the guns nor the dogs are a problem, leave the house, etc, if the remaining 1 *10^-6 % pose a serious enough threat to life, liberty etc of the population, then the government does have the right to impose limits. .
And yes, I am conflating guns and dogs, despite one being inanimate and the other not. There is a reason, right now, in our society, that dogs and even dolphins and chimps do not have the same rights that human beings do. But that’s another discussion.
LikeLike
March 1, 2013 at 4:48 am
OMG!!@!@!@!!!!
I just was over at CPP’s and realized that he made the same point (and more eloquently) than I did above.
Serves me right for reading DM first.
LikeLike
March 1, 2013 at 5:45 am
The most dangerous dog breeds aren’t necessarily the most aggressive dog breeds. The most aggressive dog breeds are dachsunds, chihuahuas, and many other small breeds. Is this surprising? They are always yapping and biting. However, the most dangerous dog breeds *as reported due to necessity of medical care* are the traditional bad boys: rottweilers, dobermans, german shepherds, etc.
So be careful what you infer, DM, about “inherently aggressive breeds”.
LikeLike
March 1, 2013 at 5:55 am
“I simply asked what action he would like to see taken for both dogs and the comparable situation for human beings.”
And I pointed out that only a dumbshit would think that there is a comparable situation for humans.
LikeLike
March 1, 2013 at 7:09 am
@ Potnia Theron Your post is a bit like the one of those undergrad non science majors asking you, “But evolution is just a theory, right?”
Domestication is one of those pesky terms that has a different meaning in biology than in the popular lexicon at. I think that most zoologists, animal behaviorists evo devo types dating back to Chuck Darwin, and even the Wikipedias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication) would agree that a defined set of criteria must be met for an animal to be considered “domesticated.” So if a culture considers pit vipers tamed in captivity domesticated, the biologists in that culture probably disagree at least in narrowly scientific terms. Perhaps you are aware of this and were just speaking from the laymans point of view, in which case I apologize for my snarkiness.
As for the pit bull debate I don’t think this makes much difference. Though a more apt analogy for the ban / regulate the pit bull proponents than, “Should we allow you to keep a pet tiger in your back yard?” might be something like, “Should we let people walk their Brahma bulls to the farmers market?”
LikeLike
March 1, 2013 at 12:06 pm
“Irregardless” is not a “combo word.” It is a hideous hybrid non-word from the Island of Dr. Moreau used in place of two useful words: irrespective and regardless.
LikeLike
March 1, 2013 at 4:55 pm
“Breeds” “Race” “Ethnicity” “Heritage” I assumed you could make the connection.
You are a sicke fucke racist motherfucker and grossly ignorant of human biology.
LikeLike