11/21/24
January 07, 2012
Pit Bull Ban Keeps Mark Buehrle Out of Miami: New Miami Marlins pitcher Mark Buehrle is buying a home outside of Miami-Dade County because of its ban on pit bulls. Buehrle, active in a charity helping Michael Vick's abused dogs, owns an 18-month-old American Staffordshire terrier named Slater that falls under the ban. "It's kind of ridiculous that because of the way a dog looks, people will ban it," he said. "Every kind of dog has good and bad, and that depends on the handlers. If you leave a dog outside all the time, it'll be crazy. Slater would never do anything harmful."
Good for Beuhrle. Breed Specific Legislature bans are bullshit.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:37 PM on January 07, 2012
Really? I think knee-jerk legislation made based of local TV news exposes is 100% perfect. Just yesterday at Petco I got attacked by a Pit Bull puppy: nearly licked my hand clean away.
posted by yerfatma at 11:35 AM on January 08, 2012
I can't speak to the accuracy of it, but here's a site that claims 22 of 31 fatalities caused by dog bites in the US in 2011 were from pit bull attacks, a breed that makes up less than 5% of the dog population.
I don't particularly care whether it's in the dog's genetic makeup or it's the genetic makeup of the owners of these breeds, I don't seem to hear much about golden retrievers or German Shepherds killing people.
Explanation?
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:42 PM on January 08, 2012
I can't speak to the accuracy of it, but here's a site that claims 22 of 31 fatalities caused by dog bites in the US in 2011 were from pit bull attacks, a breed that makes up less than 5% of the dog population.
Assuming it's true, it's similar to statistics like "the majority of violent criminals are white males" (completely made up, in case anyone really needed to guess). What valid conclusions do you think you can draw from a statistic like that?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:54 PM on January 08, 2012
Considering white males supposedly make up 32% of the population of the U.S. (from what I found), if more than 50% of all violent criminals were white males, I'd think then you'd have to consider why the number was what it was.
If the statistics I quoted are accurate for human deaths attributable to attacks by dogs, why would far more than half of those deaths be caused by one breed which makes up less than 5% of the dogs in the U.S.? That doesn't sound very ambiguous to me.
So -- explanations?
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:25 PM on January 08, 2012
wfrazerjr, perhaps I should have made up a bullshit statistic about extraterrestrials so it would be obvious that the point isn't the statistic, it's the erroneous conclusions being drawn from it. Consider the difference between these statements:
"95% of violent criminals wear shoes."
"Most (or even many) people who wear shoes are violent criminals."
Your analysis of your death-by-dog stat overlooks two important things: first, that the actual numbers are very small (and so hard to call statistically significant), and second, that even at the worst possible interpretation, the large majority of pit bulls are clearly not involved in human attacks. Saying, "Hmm, must be something about the species" is like saying, "Hmm, must be something about wearing shoes." Tell you what, though, I'd be interested to know what the corresponding stat was forty years ago, when everyone was convinced that the badass dog was the German Shepherd. You don't hear much about German Shepherds killing people...now.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:11 PM on January 08, 2012
For the record, here's more information from the website:
Together, pit bulls (22) and rottweilers (4), the number two lethal dog breed, accounted for 84% of all fatal attacks in 2011. In the 7-year period from 2005 to 2011, this same combination accounted for 73% (156) of the total recorded deaths (213). The breakdown between pit bulls and rottweilers is substantial over this 7-year period. From 2005 to 2011, pit bulls killed 127 Americans, 3 about one citizen every 20 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 29; about one citizen every 88 days.
Here's also the CDC's report, in which clearly pit bulls and rottweilers account for about 60% of deaths.
(By the way, lbb, you can go back 32 years on that PDF. German shepherds, which have been in the top four most popular breeds in the last 10 years, are far more represented in the population than pit bulls or rottweilers.)
Obviously, you're still talking about a small sample, but even then, if it appears there's a strong link showing one breed attacks humans far more frequently than almost all others, why wouldn't you err on the side of caution?
As for shoes (or whatever you want to use), I don't find it unreasonable to think there might be genetic or bred disposition to attack in certain species. Shoes, not so much.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:28 PM on January 08, 2012
These stats are for fatal attacks, but what percentage of non-fatal attacks do pitbulls account for? I mean, is it possible that pitbulls are just more fatal when they attack, or are they more prone to attack as a whole?
It would be like saying that (hypothetically) Ford Explorers account for more fatal car accidents, but not citing the percentage of total car accidents involving Explorers...
posted by MeatSaber at 11:40 PM on January 08, 2012
Obviously, breed specific legislation is not the ideal solution. However, the better options cost money. Better animal control to prevent dogs running loose and better evaluating dogs that have shown aggressive behavior are not as cheaply done as getting rid of a breed.
posted by bperk at 08:08 AM on January 09, 2012
I can understand why a Florida government would ban pit bulls. We have a lot of attacks down here -- most regrettably on children.
posted by rcade at 08:21 AM on January 09, 2012
I don't find it unreasonable to think there might be genetic or bred disposition to attack in certain species.
Aggression against other dogs is an inherent trait within pit bull type dogs. It doesn't always present itself, but the potential is there. Aggression against humans is not an inherent trait within pit bull type dogs. Pit bulls that are aggressive towards humans are like that because they were mishandled by humans.
While we're talking stats, here's one (take from the Villalobos Rescue Center site).
The American Temperament Test Society provides testing around the country for dog breeds and provides a passing score for the entire breed, based on the percentage of passed over failed within total number of that particular breed tested. As of March 2001, the American Pit Bull Terrier has a current passing rate of 82.3% which makes him one of the top 5 most stable breed of dog in the country.
Obviously, breed specific legislation is not the ideal solution. However, the better options cost money. Better animal control to prevent dogs running loose and better evaluating dogs that have shown aggressive behavior are not as cheaply done as getting rid of a breed.
Exactly. Or better education of the public as to the potential risks of pit bull ownership. Or prosecution of those who are abusing these animals in the first place. But it's easier to just blame the dog than the humans that mistreated it.
posted by goddam at 10:29 AM on January 09, 2012
As a dog owner and more specifically a pit bull owner for the last 22 years I am astounded by the ignorance surrounded by the breed and the media where reporting about the breed is concerned.
Here is a link to the National Canine Research Council studies of the facts surrounding fatal dog attacks.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/
If any body takes the time to do a quick review of these studies you will be surprised as to what are the actual facts as it relates to each incident and how the media loves to use the term pit bull to get ratings as a pit bull attack headline generates interest far more than the truth which is ignored. Abused dog of unknown origin is chained and left hungry in frozen temperatures bites unsupervised toddler while drunken and loaded owner sleeps comatose in back room, just doesn't get the same ratings as SAVAGE PIT BULL ATTACKS.
Most people don't know a pit bull from a chihuahua in the first place and Pit Bull is not a breed of dog it is a dog type.
FWIW I have an American Pit Bull Terrier and because he may have a tendency toward aggressiveness with other dogs, responsible ownership to ensure that he is not allowed to engage other dogs is mandatory. As for his temperament with people, strangers and children even toddlers, he loves everybody and is totally trustworthy. I have owned a couple of these dogs which were raised with my children and must say they have always been the best family dogs I ever had.
The problem is not dogs it is the fact the some idiots do not know how to care for, properly abide and contain their dogs and do not obey leash laws which are not dog breed specific.
FWIW - Pit bull type dogs are the most mistreated, frequently euthanized, and abandoned dogs in the USA. They are trusting, loving and will do anything their owner desires including fight to their own death. It is the Michael Vick and his friends of the world that are the problem not some innocent dogs who only want to please the person who feeds and cares for them. Of course we see how owners like Vick repay that loyalty.
posted by Atheist at 11:00 AM on January 09, 2012
(By the way, lbb, you can go back 32 years on that PDF. German shepherds, which have been in the top four most popular breeds in the last 10 years, are far more represented in the population than pit bulls or rottweilers.)
This is an inaccurate statement. Again there is no breed pit bull. Pit bull type dogs (which anything that remotely resembles a stereotype look is lumped into) are far more populous than any registered AKC or UKC dog breed. The term pit bull refers to American Staffordshire Terriers, English Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Bullys, American Bulldogs, Olde English Bulldogs, Presa Canarios, Fila Brasillero, Argentine Dogos, as well as every mongrel that has any mixed blood of similar appearance.
posted by Atheist at 11:15 AM on January 09, 2012
wfrazerjr:
Obviously, you're still talking about a small sample, but even then, if it appears there's a strong link showing one breed attacks humans far more frequently than almost all others, why wouldn't you err on the side of caution?
Because correlation isn't causation. The link you're talking about is a statistical correlation. I was always taught that when a statistical correlation exists between A and B, it can be the case that:
- A causes or contributes to B - B causes or contributes to A - A and B are both caused or contributed to by some unknown C, or - no causative relationship exists.
In this case, I think it's definitely worth looking at the history of dog breeds that have, or have had, badass reputations. There's a quote circulating around that says, "In the 70's they blamed the Dobermans, in the 80's they blamed the German Shepherds, in the 90's they blamed the Rottweilers, now they blame the Pit Bulls. When are they going to start blaming the humans?" Were those people in the '70s, '80s and '90s just wrong about what the bad dog breed was? Or could it be that what's changed is some kind of warped fashion sense that decrees which breed is "bad", so that people who want to have a mean dog now choose pit bulls (and abuse them and make them mean) where they once would have favored German Shepherds?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:59 PM on January 09, 2012
Just one anecdote about Pit Bulls: A few months ago I took my son's car in for a tire replacement. While I waited, in walked a rather rough-looking type with a large American Staffordshire on a leash. After he was finished at the counter, this guy proceeds to sit down next to me, and his dog starts eying me like I was a pork chop. The guy put a hand on the dog's head, turned to me, and told me not to worry, the dog was tame. About that time, dog decided that the inside of my leg needed to be inspected. Evidently I was deemed inedible, because dog's next move was to push my hand with his nose and insist on being petted. I happily complied, and had a 4-legged friend for the half hour I had to wait. Pit Bulls are not all bad, but any dog can be made vicious. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers have the size and strength to make it hurt. If I remember the story correctly, while he was in England General George Patton had a pet English Bull Terrier. He selected the dog based on an image of ferocity, but the dog turned out to be a total wimp.
posted by Howard_T at 05:14 PM on January 09, 2012
Glad they have vigorously enforced canine control laws in Miami while all the unwanted exotic pets that have been released west of Krome Avenue are multiplying exponentially and taking over the region.
Burmese pythons have their sights set on Broward County - once they make sure Metro Dade is cleared of all poodles.
This is the best time of year to round up iguanas in South Florida. They get up in the fruit trees and when a cold snap comes through, they go catatonic and you can pull them down and hand them over to one of the local barbeque patrols.