Does something need to be done about dogs?

[dowie]

You replied to a post about fatalities:

When a dog kills someone it is generally confiscated and destroyed, it's not just a "raging ball of fur and teeth" only seen for a brief moment and again 2/3rds of recent fatalities (since 2020) have involved "pit bulls" in the US sense of the word. As with the US stats they're a clear outlier, you'll need a better argument than ackchually sometimes they're misidentified to try and explain away those.

Oh, so when you or any other average human are having your arm or your face chewed off, you're able to positively identify exact breed?

Again the person is dead... that's what a fatality indicates!

Both sets of stats specify where the Police had experts confirm the breed. It is therefore reasonable to presume that in cases where there is no such mention, the breed was not confirmed.
But prove me wrong - Show me the methods used to confirm the breed in all six...

What are you even referring to here?

 

[ttaskmaster]

You replied to a post about fatalities:

Which you made in the midst of a conversation about both dead people and people who survived the attack, as you well know.
Do keep up, as your feigned-idiocy act is just boring, now.

Again the person is dead... that's what a fatality indicates!

So you're just gonna ignore the repeated references to those who survived.... how clever.

What are you even referring to here?

The six fatalities you're lock-jawed on with your bleating about pit-bull terrier types, and the data issues those six cases share with the wider cases of those that weren't fatalities.
Is that clear enough for you, yet?

 

[dowie]

So you're just gonna ignore the repeated references to those who survived.... how clever.

No, I'm just pointing out that I referred to UK stats re: fatalities and before that US stats re: fatalities, you chose to reply to my posts about fatalities with an obviously flawed argument.

The six fatalities you're lock-jawed on with your bleating about pit-bull terrier types, and the data issues those six cases share with the wider cases of those that weren't fatalities.
Is that clear enough for you, yet?

No still not clear, what 6 cases are you referring to and what was the data issue with those cases? Instead of ranting and posturing why not just be a bit clearer about what it is you're referring to? I've quoted stats on fatalities, apparently, you have an issue with 6 of the 12 involving pitbull/bull terrier type dogs but you won't tell me which 6 you have an issue with or what the issue is with those cases?

Hi dowie I mean these 6 cases:

The issue that all these have in common is X

Then at least I have something to respond to.

 

[ttaskmaster]

No, I'm just pointing out that I referred to UK stats re: fatalities and before that US stats re: fatalities, you chose to reply to my posts about fatalities with an obviously flawed argument.

This is a wider discussion than just your little corner. My argument includes your stats, applying holistically as already described and for the reasons already specified in the studies you refuse to read.

No still not clear, what 6 cases are you referring to and what was the data issue with those cases? Instead of ranting and posturing why not just be a bit clearer about what it is you're referring to? I've quoted stats on fatalities, apparently, you have an issue with 6 of the 12 involving pitbull/bull terrier type dogs but you won't tell me which 6 you have an issue with or what the issue is with those cases?

It's nine cases total, as explained already, 2/3rds of which you assert were pit-bull types, but provide no substantiation of any breed confirmation as has been common in previous years' stats.

 

[dowie]

This is a wider discussion than just your little corner.

So why quote my post about fatalities with an argument that doesn't apply? You're perfectly capable of making your wider argument but if you're doing it in response to something where it doesn't make sense then it seems logical to point that out.

It's nine cases total, as explained already, 2/3rds of which you assert were pit-bull types, but provide no substantiation of any breed confirmation as has been common in previous years' stats.

Again which cases do you have an issue with here and why? I referred to 12 cases out of 18 involving bull terrier-type dogs and you apparently had an issue with 6 of them (and now 9 of them) but won't tell me which cases you have an issue with and what the issue is?

 

[ttaskmaster]

So why quote my post about fatalities with an argument that doesn't apply? You're perfectly capable of making your wider argument but if you're doing it in response to something where it doesn't make sense then it seems logical to point that out.

Because it does apply to ALL of them. Singling out small elements of a holistic issue does nothing to address that issue and loses much of the context behind it, which is one of many reasons why many experts are against breed-specific legislation.
I'll say that again, since you keep missing it - It applies to ALL of them.
Every single attack report, regardless of fatality.
ALL of them.

Again which cases do you have an issue with here and why? I referred to 12 cases out of 18 involving bull terrier-type dogs and you apparently had an issue with 6 of them (and now 9 of them) but won't tell me which cases you have an issue with and what the issue is?

Which cases - Any you care to cite which have no mention of breed confirmation.
Regarding numbers - I was specifically continuing the discussion you didn't read about the 9 fatalities of 2022, of which 6 gave the breed as a pit-bull type, but it applies just as much to your oddly-selected 12 of 18, or the 76-odd (depending on source) in the link you've already supplied. I specifically selected that year as it was the only one with a significantly higher incident count... being 50% more than the previous highest records of 6 in any one year.

The issue is that many case reports make no mention of confirming the breed, where others specifically detail it, raising again the question of the validity in breed-specific legislation.

 

[dowie]

Because it does apply to ALL of them.

Your point was about identifying a ball of fur or something i.e. a victim being attacked, that clearly doesn't apply in the case of fatalities where the victim is dead, it was a silly/flawed objection to make in reply to a post about fatalities as already pointed out.

Which cases - Any you care to cite which have no mention of breed confirmation.
[...]
The issue is that many case reports make no mention of confirming the breed, where others specifically detail it, raising again the question of the validity in breed-specific legislation.

Nah the vast majority of instances have mentioned the breed. There was the "unknown 8 dogs incident" which I've included as no-bull terrier related.

For example the most recent is "Reportedly American Bulldog[135] or Pitbull/Husky cross" - there's some uncertainty/confusion there but it's not particularly relevant to the argument as either way( American bull dog/Husky cross or Putbull/Husky cross) it's still a bull terrier type dog.

It's not like border collies or pugs are being misidentified as bull terrier-type dogs here, the presence of some uncertainty in a minority of cases doesn't really counter the fact that 2/3rds of the recent incidents involved bull-terrier-type dogs.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Your point was about identifying a ball of fur or something i.e. a victim being attacked, that clearly doesn't apply in the case of fatalities where the victim is dead, it was a silly/flawed objection to make in reply to a post about fatalities as already pointed out.

My point was about both survivors in the case of survival, and third parties in the case of fatality, the latter of which is the least reliable.
It applies.

Nah the vast majority of instances have mentioned the breed. There was the "unknown 8 dogs incident" which I've included as no-bull terrier related.

And that is my point - They only mention the breed. They do not specifically state that the breed was confirmed, nor any method of confirmation - It's important because others very specifically state this, including method of confirmation, so presumably such confirmation is a requirement of procedure and therefore the mere mention of breed is based solely on assumption.

For example the most recent is "Reportedly American Bulldog[135] or Pitbull/Husky cross" - there's some uncertainty/confusion there but it's not particularly relevant to the argument as either way( American bull dog/Husky cross or Putbull/Husky cross) it's still a bull terrier type dog.

It's extremely relevant, given the earlier discussion about breeds commonly mistaken for pit-bulls, many of which aren't even bull-terrier types. This is also not including any crossbreeds, or any of those breeds less commonly (but still) mistakenly identified as pit-bull types, either.
This mistaken identity includes shelter workers and even some owners themselves, so what hope would there be for a third party filling out a witness statement or a post-treatment medical report based on either a surviving victim's account, or an eyewitness speaking for the deceased?

It's not like border collies or pugs are being misidentified as bull terrier-type dogs here, the presence of some uncertainty in a minority of cases doesn't really counter the fact that 2/3rds of the recent incidents involved bull-terrier-type dogs.

But it could easily be the likes of a Boxer or a Bullmastiff that was misidentified, as is common.

 

[dowie]

My point was about both survivors in the case of survival,

In reply to a post about fatalities! Again, why quote the post with that argument when it clearly doesn't apply, it's clearly nonsense if you just go back and read it.

It's extremely relevant, given the earlier discussion about breeds commonly mistaken for pit-bulls, many of which aren't even bull-terrier types. This is also not including any crossbreeds, or any of those breeds less commonly (but still) mistakenly identified as pit-bull types, either.

I'm not concerned about some specific/narrow UK "pitbull" definition and the difficulties in discerning them but rather my argument has been about bull terrier breeds in general, this is just a weak excuse when the data shows 2/3rds of the recent fatalities were down to bull terrier types. I take the point that in some cases a bull mastiff esp a cross could be confused with say a bully cross or similar but the portion involved is pretty clearly skewed toward bull terriers and most of these incidents aren't crosses. the example I gave for example there was some confusion but not as to whether the dog was a bull terrier cross but what type of bull terrier it was crossed with!

Ultimately you're attempting to throw in some uncertainty but placing too much emphasis on it, firstly with the victim identifying the breed when being attacked by a ball of fur (irrelevant when they're dead) and now some possible misidentification re: bull mastiffs etc.. I very much doubt that every single bull terrier death is actually a secret bull mastiff.

In fact, back in reality we've seen a similar issue here with bull terrier type dogs that we can see from the US data too.

 

[ttaskmaster]

In reply to a post about fatalities! Again, why quote the post with that argument when it clearly doesn't apply, it's clearly nonsense if you just go back and read it.

The same problem affects both scenarios, in the same way, for the same reasons. You'd understand that if you'd read things properly.

I'm not concerned about some specific/narrow UK "pitbull" definition and the difficulties in discerning them but rather my argument has been about bull terrier breeds in general, this is just a weak excuse when the data shows 2/3rds of the recent fatalities were down to bull terrier types.

Can you prove that the data definitely shows beyond any doubt that every single one of those dogs' breed was correctly identified and validated by experts? Or is it just the ones where they specifically state it was?
If the latter, then the others are at the very least suspect.

If you now want to widen your argument to include bull-terrier breeds "in general", then you're looking at a similarly increased scope of likely error, with at least four different correct answers to the question of breed and who knows how many other possibilities... this is further exacerbated if you're allowing crosses into your generalisation, as that's no longer breed-specific legislation and instead you're having to address the behaviour of individual dogs.

I take the point that in some cases a bull mastiff esp a cross could be confused with say a bully cross or similar but the portion involved is pretty clearly skewed toward bull terriers and most of these incidents aren't crosses.

This is several separate and very distinct breeds that people commonly mistake for bull-terrier types, which speaks to the unreliability of appearance-based judgement - We're not talking crossbreeds either, but things like Boxers that are clearly at least twice the size and look almost nothng like bull-terriers. Like I said, live victims often will have been too concerned about the fight for their life to stop and accurately assess the specific breed of dog attacking them... and in the case of the dead ones, it's either down to an eyewitness (which makes it unreliable anecdotal evidence) or third party reporting (which is speculation).

I very much doubt that every single bull terrier death is actually a secret bull mastiff.

So would I, yet people do commonly make such mistakes.
Like I said in the beginning - Unreported and misreported.

 

[dowie]

If you now want to widen your argument to include bull-terrier breeds "in general"

That's been my position from the start if you'd paid attention.

So would I, yet people do commonly make such mistakes.
Like I said in the beginning - Unreported and misreported.

That's just a hand-waving excuse as pointed out already, you're using the presence of a small amount of uncertainty to ignore all of the data, it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Both in the US and the UK bull terrier type dogs are responsible for huge amount of the dog related deaths and it isn't even close, this "but but some may be misidentified" doesn't negate that, just as the obviously flawed argument that the now deceased victim wouldn't necessarily be able to identify the breed while being attacked - they don't need to, they've since died!

 

[ttaskmaster]

That's been my position from the start if you'd paid attention.

And yet you objected when I did the very same, instead trying to dismiss the wider approach and focus just on your tiny little death statistic.
That is just disingenuous.

That's just a hand-waving excuse as pointed out already, you're using the presence of a small amount of uncertainty to ignore all of the data, it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm ignoring nothing.
However, since only some of the records were confirmed and validated, the others do require that same level of validation, while factoring in the other uncertainty variables as explained in previously linked studies and reports.

just as the obviously flawed argument that the now deceased victim wouldn't necessarily be able to identify the breed while being attacked

Yet again, not what I said.
Given how vehemently you leap on it when someoen else misrepresents your statements, you seem to make a habit (possibly even a hobby) of doing the same to others' statements.

 

[dowie]

And yet you objected when I did the very same, instead trying to dismiss the wider approach and focus just on your tiny little death statistic.

No, I just pointed out the obvious flaw in your reply to a post about fatalities that's all and the obvious flaw is pretty obvious.

 

[ttaskmaster]

No, I just pointed out the obvious flaw in your reply to a post about fatalities that's all and the obvious flaw is pretty obvious.

My point applies to both cases. Your continued misrepresentation of that point is the only flaw here.

 

[dowie]

My point applies to both cases. Your continued misrepresentation of that point is the only flaw here.

Nope, here is the post you replied to:

When a dog kills someone it is generally confiscated and destroyed, it's not just a "raging ball of fur and teeth" only seen for a brief moment and again 2/3rds of recent fatalities (since 2020) have involved "pit bulls" in the US sense of the word. As with the US stats they're a clear outlier, you'll need a better argument than ackchually sometimes they're misidentified to try and explain away those.

This is the flawed point:

Oh, so when you or any other average human are having your arm or your face chewed off, you're able to positively identify exact breed?

Can anyone spot the super obvious flaw?

The person having their face chewed off doesn't need to be able to identify the breed in the case of fatalities because... they're dead! The dog is identified by the police afterward and typically destroyed!

 

[Dis86]

Four-year-old girl needed 40 stitches after having face mauled in dog attack

Girl, 4, has 40 stitches after American Bulldog mauls her - before mum saves her

WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES. Luna-Ann Forsyth, four, was rushed to hospital in a taxi after an American Bulldog mauled her face while at a family friend's home in Nuneaton, Warwickshire

www-mirror-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

Wouldn't harm a fly

 

[ttaskmaster]

Nope, here is the post you replied to:



This is the flawed point:



Can anyone spot the super obvious flaw?

The person having their face chewed off doesn't need to be able to identify the breed in the case of fatalities because... they're dead! The dog is identified by the police afterward and typically destroyed!

And once again you're ignoring that this was, as already explained to you numerous times, already in reference to all forms of attack including any identified by the Police.
You're clearly clutching at straws and coming back with nothing but strawmen.

Call me if you're actually going to actually address the points raised.

 

[sidimmu]

Wouldn't harm a fly

Where's it say that?
Dont think anyone has said that dog's wouldn't harm a fly, just there is a number of variables involved in each dog.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Just LOL if you don't know when to stop.

e: noobs.

real e: for formality.

 

[SpellowHouse]

You know this argument is similar to the gun onwership argument in the states. There is no solution. You either find the deaths acceptable or you ban all breeds of dog over a certain weight.