[ANTHONYD]

Flofocus,May 16 2006, 01:08 PM Wrote:Cosmo, our great dane was a great dog.  People moved across the street when they sa wyou coming....same when I walk both dogs togther today.

He put my dad in the hospital for a week and a bit.  The dog took off after a female dane in the dog park, dragged my father causing 2nd degree burns along his side  :blink:
[right][snapback]187878[/snapback][/right]

Danes are something else for sure. There is one in our neighbourhood. I hope he lived in a bigger house than ours!:blink:

[scoobasteve]

And thats why I prefer cats/dogs. Housecats can't rip your arms off.

[Flofocus]

scoobasteve,May 16 2006, 02:01 PM Wrote:And thats why I prefer cats/dogs.  Housecats can't rip your arms off.
[right][snapback]187893[/snapback][/right]

meh, I've got both, and the dogs win the popularity contest hands down! :P

[scoobasteve]

They may,

But i still have my arms. :ph34r:


That being said, I dont have anything against dogs. Small dogs piss me off, because theyre so dumb and piss everywhere.

and i'll never have the space to own a large breed.

so i'm SOL... :lol:

[ZTWsquared]

Flofocus,May 16 2006, 12:47 PM Wrote:http://www.fataldogattacks.com/

Quote:Examination of newspaper archival records dating back to the 1950’s and 1960’s reveal the same types of severe and fatal attacks occurring then as today. The only difference is the breed of dog responsible for these events. A random study of 74 severe and fatal attacks reported in the Evening Bulletin (Philadelphia, PA) from 1964-1968, show no severe or fatal attacks by Rottweilers and only one attack attributed to a Pit-Bull-type dog. The dogs involved in most of these incidents were the breeds that were popular at the time.

[right][snapback]187867[/snapback][/right]

This excerpt tends to prove what I’ve been saying about the inherently dangerous nature of large dogs, and it tends to prove it is not a new problem. Nobody is claiming that only pit bulls are deadly.

But you are also being very selective about what you quote. Here’s a couple of other quotes from your source that puts things into a different perspective. And since this is your source I hope you won’t now call this "media BS." I added the emphasis and the conclusions.

Karen Delise Wrote:THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001 *

The study covers 431 documented human fatalities from a dog attack.[That’s a lot of dead people – and it is a statistically significant number]

Location of Attack
25% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs
25% resulted from dogs loose in their yard
23% occurred inside the home
17% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their property
10% involved leashed dogs or miscellaneous circumstances
[Conclusion: statistically the most dangerous situations are a dog on a leash or a dog in its yard - this is clearly not about bad ownership practices and criminal records aren’t a factor.]

Victim Profile
79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
12% of the victims were the elderly, aged  65 - 94
9% of the victims were 13 - 64 years old
[Conclusion: the vast majority of victims were children and the elderly – the two groups in our society we typically acknowledge deserve greater protection – I plan on being part of the solution – how about you?]

Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%), Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%), Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%), St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%), other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).
[Conclusion: assuming that pit bulls exist in exactly the same numbers as these other breeds (unlikely), they still represent the single largest deadly threat to humans. Additionally, 16% mixed breed and 15% non-specified breeds could very well include dogs that are essentially pit bulls. My guess is that there are a lot more mixed breed dogs, a lot more german shepherds and possibly even more dobermans than pit bulls … and if so, then that 21% represents an even greater statistical threat by pit bulls]

Right now there is a pet overpopulation problem in the U.S. and probably Canada, that is resulting in millions upon millions of animals being put down every year. I certainly don’t wish this on any animal; but you can’t “put down” those causing the irresponsible breeding and ownership of pets, so the animal pays the price. If pit bull puppies have to be put down because of the irresponsibility of owners/breeders, the onus is on them and not on those of us advocating safety for kids and seniors.

I acknowledge that banning pit bulls is an incomplete solution to the wider problem of fatal dog attacks on people. But dog breeders, dog owners, legislators and the judiciary have let the situation get out of hand and the backlash is natural and understandable.

The way I see it, dog breeders and dog owners have the choice to be part of the solution or be part of the problem; and the choices they make will dictate just how far the rest of society chooses to go to eliminate the problem.

Frankly … if you’ve chosen to not muzzle your pit bull in clear violation of the law – then you’ve chosen to be part of the problem because all you’re doing is pointing a big fat “danger” sign right at your dog’s head; proof to some that even reasonable pit bull owners can’t be trusted to do the lawful and responsible thing.

All I hear from the pro pit bull group is about their “rights” as pet owners (no such right exists) and about how wonderful pit bulls are. What I don’t hear from dog breeders and owners is just how they plan to end a problem that has been around for a long time. And if they can’t, or won’t, then it’s up to the rest of society to make it happen.

Hopefully the breeders and owners of dobermans and rottweilers are paying attention and are making plans now to make sure their breeds aren’t ever again involved in a fatal attack – because if they don’t, they’re next.

[NefCanuck]

Hell any dog can be aggresive if the owner is a moron.

My aunt & uncle had a pair of daschunds that they let run wild. Those evil little sausage tubes took great joy in knocking me over as a kid EVERY GODDAMN TIME I WENT TO THEIR HOUSE! <_< and they thought it was funny :angry:

All my dad would do is just shrug.... and he never figured out why I hated going over to their house :rolleyes:

NefCanuck

[ZTWsquared]

NefCanuck,May 16 2006, 08:39 PM Wrote:Hell any dog can be aggresive.

Fixed ... every dog has an element of aggression that is inherent to their nature and breeding; and yes, owners can affect an individual animals aggression - but the differences between one breed and another are purely a function of nature and breeding. Of course not all dogs are by nature the same in this regard - some breeds are naturally and by breeding more aggressive than others - a fact described by Flofocus who is pit bull owner.

NefCanuck,May 16 2006, 08:39 PM Wrote:My aunt & uncle had a pair of daschunds that they let run wild.  Those evil little sausage tubes took great joy in knocking me over as a kid EVERY GODDAMN TIME I WENT TO THEIR HOUSE! <_< and they thought it was funny :angry:
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]188020[/snapback][/right]

Exactly - all dogs have a natural aggression to some degree or another. What differs is their physical abilities and their psychological make up. Dachsunds were bred to be rat killers IIRC and their behaviour reflects their breeding.

An attack by a dachsund would be a very unpleasant thing ... but unlikely to be deadly. Miniature poodles could for all I know be more aggressive than pit bulls, but by virtue of their size and strength their ability to kill a human being is very limited. That makes them far less dangerous to the overall population than say a pit bull.