Or introduce stricter controls and requirements on who can own them? Or ban certain types such as fully automatic weapons or pistols?
Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
Or introduce stricter controls and requirements on who can own them? Or ban certain types such as fully automatic weapons or pistols?
No it isn't.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
Which would be great if anyone actually enforced them...
There are dog breeds that should be banned, you normally see them at the end of the drug chavs arm.
Any dog can turn but the bad ones are usually the 2 or 3 breeds that the chavs tend to own.
They were typically bred for fighting and that nature still follows them, ok not all of them but it's always the one that turns that gets the headlines.
To compare it to gun ownership in the states is just plain stupid though, gun deaths in the states is what 40k per year or there abouts,
A dog fatality is once every few years, still to much though as that fatality is usually a small child.
Any dog can turn but the bad ones are usually the 2 or 3 breeds that the chavs tend to own.
They were typically bred for fighting and that nature still follows them, ok not all of them but it's always the one that turns that gets the headlines.
To compare it to gun ownership in the states is just plain stupid though, gun deaths in the states is what 40k per year or there abouts,
A dog fatality is once every few years, still to much though as that fatality is usually a small child.
No, it wasn't. You quoted my post and put in that reply... if you were referring to something else then why quote a post talking about fatalities and reply with that flawed argument?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
That was what you posted in follow-up to the aforementioned discussion.
And once again, it's not flawed because it includes both aspects, as has been continually explained to you.
No no, feel free - I'd *love* to hear what you have to say about it...I can tell you why he keeps doing stuff like that but it upsets the mods
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 761
My dog weighed 35 kg. Would you consider acceptable?
Saw this and thought of this thread:
It's pretty clear to see.
In b4 the seemingly innumerate cope posting... but muh misidentificaiton, mebbe it was all bull mastifs... but how can dead people identify a raging ball of fur... etc..
It's pretty clear to see.
In b4 the seemingly innumerate cope posting... but muh misidentificaiton, mebbe it was all bull mastifs... but how can dead people identify a raging ball of fur... etc..
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
Uh-huh...
Deconstructing Flawed Pit Bull Statistics
Comprehensive studies on canine DNA have determined that, on average, 60% of dogs identified as 'pitbulls' lack DNA from recognized pitbull-type breeds. This discrepancy leads to exceedingly inaccurate breed information in media coverage and unreliable statistics on dog bites and attacks.
www.pitbullinfo.org
82+ Breeds Implicated in Fatal Dog Attacks
Since only 2016, at least 82 different breeds and mixed breeds have been implicated in fatal dog attacks in the U.S., including Akitas, Boxers, Dalmatians, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds, Great Danes, Huskies, Labrador Retrievers, Mastiffs, pit bull-type dogs, Rottweilers, and many others.
www.pitbullinfo.org
Pit bull dog bite expert opinion about dog bite injury inflicted by pit bulls
Pit bull dog bite expert Richard Polsky, PhD analyzes a study arguing that pit bulls are inherently dangerous because they inflict severe dog bite injury at high rates. Expert opinion challenges the findings of this dog bite study.
www.dogexpert.com
Definitely no misidentification going on here.... nope:
Genetic Testing Shows Animal Shelters Often Misidentify Dogs' Breeds
Shelter staff correctly identified a pup's primary or secondary breed just 67 percent of the time
www.smithsonianmag.com
DNA studies reveal that shelter workers often mislabel dogs as ‘pit bulls’ » College of Veterinary Medicine » University of Florida
DNA studies reveal that shelter workers often mislabel dogs as 'pit bulls', UF researchers report.
www.vetmed.ufl.edu
"At the opposite end of the spectrum, one in three dogs labeled as pit bull-type dogs lacked DNA associated with pit bull breeds".
For the record, bite reports have 'confirmed' that this is a pit-bull type:
And so is this:
And so is this:
So there's a pretty clear outlier there... like it's not even close and.... yeah, we're back to the but but what if some of the cases were misidentified stuff.
Sure... back in reality we're talking about a huge difference here and you're throwing in whatever you can from google... stuff about shelter staff etc.
Sure... back in reality we're talking about a huge difference here and you're throwing in whatever you can from google... stuff about shelter staff etc.
DNA analysis is quite expensive.
Shelter staff can only go on general size/bone/muscle and skull structure.
For example pic 1 from @ttaskmanager looks like a doberman/GSH cross at first glance.. But the skull structure looks more like a bull terrier type. Maybe a bit of st. Bernard or collie too.
There's probably a few breeds mixed up in that one. All of which can be a handful/dangerous of not trained appropriately.
Shelter staff can only go on general size/bone/muscle and skull structure.
For example pic 1 from @ttaskmanager looks like a doberman/GSH cross at first glance.. But the skull structure looks more like a bull terrier type. Maybe a bit of st. Bernard or collie too.
There's probably a few breeds mixed up in that one. All of which can be a handful/dangerous of not trained appropriately.
Last edited:
I think we should start breeding domestic cats with characteristics which are similar to e.g. XL Bullies in terms of size and muscle mass. We're a few generations behind on the project so the next best time to start is now. The cat people will be victorious.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
It's a Greater Swiss Mountain Dog and absolutely massive, almost twice the size of a pit-bull/bull-terrier type. For some breeds, the sport they're known for is Flyball or Agility... for these GSMDs it's pulling carts weighing up to 2 tons.
However, reports have identified it as a pit-bull type, so it's clearly one of those. People don't make mistakes in these things, even though a string of studies shows otherwise.
A full DNA analysis for breed, ancestry, age, and health screening costs about £70-100 from your local vet. A breed-only test is about £30, and businesses (shelters, Police, dog wardens etc) likely get cheaper rates.
Pic 3 is a Black Mouth Cur.
Pic 2 is a Rottweiler. Dobermans are much scrawnier.
But they're really pit-bulls, 'coz the report said they looked like one and, as is often said on DogsBite.org, "If it looks like a pitbull, then it is one".
Those shelter staff have greater than average experience in identifying dog breeds, and were even given ID charts to use during testing (which you know because you read it, right?), yet still got a significant percentage wrong. It is their questionable assertions that most owners will repeat when stating their dogs' breeds. So what makes you think your chart-compilers got it 100% correct, or even 60% correct?
There is a basic numeracy issue here on your part lets suppose they only got it 60% correct as per some shelter volunteers/staff... that still leaves pitbulls/bull terrier types as a huge outlier.
That's the bit you don't seem to grasp, the stats are overwhelming and you're like but but what if it was ackchually a mastiff... Then in addition to that this isn't some shelter staff member just saying what they think the dog is... when someone is actually killed by a dog it's a bit more serious/thorough than that and police want to establish whether it was a banned breed etc.
You're basically just taking this scatter gun approach in order to throw in some uncertainty then base your entire argument on it, that's led to the really silly argument about the victim not being able to identify a raging ball of fur that fails to note that the victim is dead and now a hasty google to find stuff about shelter staff is a different context entirely!
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,828
I agree with dowie.
Pit bull/ american bulldog/ bully XL are a clear outlier in us/uk fatal dog attacks. The weight, and reliability, of evidence for breed/ type identification is likely to be higher in fatal attacks than in non-fatal attacks.
I differ from Dowie as to the ease of legislating on "type", but can't really fault that these types are identified most frequently in fatal attacks
Pit bull/ american bulldog/ bully XL are a clear outlier in us/uk fatal dog attacks. The weight, and reliability, of evidence for breed/ type identification is likely to be higher in fatal attacks than in non-fatal attacks.
I differ from Dowie as to the ease of legislating on "type", but can't really fault that these types are identified most frequently in fatal attacks
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
That would then be 7 out of 18 though, rather than 12 out of 18, so you're talking closer to one-half rather than 2/3rds.
The point is that there's no confirmation of validation in all cases, even though the number of cases is tiny.
If you can validate each separate case, that's another matter and worth considering, but not until the full data is available.
Seriousness is not a factor in determining breed, nor in human ability to ascertain breed based only on looks.
Shelter staff were used in the studies because they have more experience than the average person in identifying breeds and have convenient access to a wide variety of breeds, and because their breed assertions are what people go by when deciding if a dog is safe to adopt.
Whether or not someone was killed or only hurt by the dog is not a factor - If the dog caused harm to any human, it is a criminal offense regardless of severity, and in all such cases the banned status should be established, if only because it adds to the prosecution's case.
I've always argued this uncertainty. This is just further substantiation of the reasoning behind it. You like substantiation, don't you? Citations, references?
I'd be interested to hear why you think a victim or any other eyewitness, in the midst of a stressfull attack, would do a better job of identifying a breed than an industry professional in a relaxed setting with an ID chart for comparison...
Why?
The people who fill out the forms for fatal attacks are the same as those who fill out the ones for non-fatal attacks. The reliability is the same.
Meanwhile you only have some of the fatality reports confirming breed test results. If it's a factor in some, it should be a factor in all, which is why those that don't mention test confirmation are questionable. You'd think that, out of thousands of dog bite incidents, these few really serious cases would have chapter and verse on every detail.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,828
It's a bit of a reach the say reliability is the same.
Non-fatal attacks cover a broad spectrum from being knocked down by an over-excited dog, to serious but non-fatal injury. They will be graded and allocated time as the relevant force deems appropriate. Fatal attacks will always attract a higher degree of scrutiny, due to perceived seriousness.
Perception of oversight always leads to more scrupulous investigation, in my experience.
An added complication is that non-fatal attacks may not be reported- even those which are apparently serious. Reports may also not be properly investigated. HM Coroner has remarked on this in the past.
The world being what it is, it is very difficult to keep up on, say, a particular type of incident on a national basis. Different regions often report in different ways, even when they are under a statutory obligation to report. Trying to pick the bones out of poorly scanned pdfs of block text is no fun, for example. Categorisation is also often done poorly, where it is done at all.
Without wanting to appear rude, we just have to accept historical reporting is what it is, and we don't and won't live in the perfect world.
Where there is a clear outlier in breed/ type in reported fatal attacks, it's reasonable to draw certain inferences, and it's also reasonable to accept information and data are not perfect.
I mean 6 out of 9 in the past year are XL Bully dogs and I doubt very much any of them looked like this:
For the record, bite reports have 'confirmed' that this is a pit-bull type:
This is a bad argument, anecdotes about misreporting in "bite reports"... arguments about victims not being able to identify a raging ball of fur are flawed here... the victim is dead anyway and the police are investigating a fatality and likely confiscating a dog/putting it down, checking whether it's of a banned type.
I don't see why anyone needs to own say an XL Bully or why it even exists as a pet breed... and with 2/3rds of fatalities coming from that breed last year it's clearly an issue, people need to wilfully stick their heads in the sand or just suffer from some serious innumeracy to not see that it's a clear outlier.
Last edited: