What Kind of Dog is This?

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Baz

[*] Proper socialization and training for your pup is key.

Indeed. I'll add one more, that I think is even more important.

Train the owners.

I'd wager that an untrained dog will do better under the care of a person that is knowledgeable about dogs, than a trained dog will do with the average, clueless dog owner. Dogs pick things up pretty quickly and are far more motivated than we are to fit in.

JR

[yahh]

I live in Richmond (25 minutes) from Goochland and the rumor/story is that these (rescue) dogs were caged outdoors 24/7, not being fed regularly, and not exercised at all. She would see them a few times a month even though she was the"owner", but her dad was watching them while she was going through some stuff.

Also, "Pitbulls" are the sweetest dogs when raised properly.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Baz

The stats on her site *may* be accurate - I don't know. Just seems like she has a bit of a vendetta against a *certain* breed.....

Yup. And the police have a "vendetta" against MS13, the Hells Angels, etc.

That's a pretty thoroughly annotated piece, Baz. Unlike the opinions expressed in javadog's paper.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

That's a pretty thoroughly annotated piece, Baz. Unlike the opinions expressed in javadog's paper.

YOU HAVEN'T READ MY PAPER YET.

QUIT HIDING BEHIND THE OTHER ONE.

jr

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by javadog

Just so we are on the same page, here's every link you posted, before today, in the last three anti-pit bull threads you have started:
Not a single one is a scientific study. News articles and opinion pieces, every one of them.

I've already shown you links that I have posted in the past. And, as I predicted, you completely ignored those links and came after me, inferring that I am lying about what I have posted in the past. While I'm flattered that this means enough to you to research it to this level, your inability to find my older posts that include links to studies, statistics, and data in no way means they are not here.

Hint: I'm not the only one who starts threads about the dangers of pit bulls. Second hint: I was very careful to indicate there are a number of us who have posted links to various studies and such that are awfully damning to pit bulls. I will by no means take all of the credit for that. Others have contributed well thought out positions against your favorite breed, with the facts and data to back them up.

Here are some others that I have previously posted:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19644273

More than 30 different offending breeds were documented in the medical records. The most common breeds included pit bull terriers (50.9 percent), Rottweilers (8.9 percent), and mixed breeds of the two aforementioned breeds (6 percent).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475022

RESULTS:
Our Trauma and Emergency Surgery Services treated 228 patients with dog bite injuries; for 82 of those patients, the breed of dog involved was recorded (29 were injured by pit bulls). Compared with attacks by other breeds of dogs, attacks by pit bulls were associated with a higher median Injury Severity Scale score (4 vs. 1; P = 0.002), a higher risk of an admission Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or lower (17.2% vs. 0%; P = 0.006), higher median hospital charges ($10,500 vs. $7200; P = 0.003), and a higher risk of death (10.3% vs. 0%; P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS:
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.

Granted, the two links I show above I had originally simply left embedded in this link, which I posted directly:

https://www.livescience.com/27145-are-pit-bulls-dangerous.html

I've pulled them out for your convenience. You're welcome.

Here is a new one for you to chew on:

https://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers),

And just who drew the above conclusion, and what did they base it upon? A pretty unimpeachable source:

From the Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, US Department of Health and Human Services, US Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE (MS K-63), Atlanta, GA 30341 (Sacks, Gilchrist); The Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037 (Sinclair, Lockwood); and the Division of Education and Research, American Veterinary Medical Association, 1931 N Meacham Rd, Ste 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173 (Golab). Dr. Sacks’ present address is the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE (MS K-45), Atlanta, GA 30341. Dr. Sinclair’s present address is Shelter Veterinary Services, 9320 Jarrett Ct, Montgomery Village, MD 20886.

The charts shown with the above paper are particularly telling. They start on the second page.

Feel free to ignore these and attack me again.

[javadog]

The problem with what you quote, and what others quote, is that these studies range from simple compilations of bite statistics, which make no attempt to understand the factors underlying the statistics, to those that consider some of the factors and admit that their are other things that are ignored. Consider also that some of the statistics are unreliable. It is estimated by those that study this problems that breeds are misidentified nearly one third of the time in these incidents and that reliable numbers of individual breed populations don't exist.

Feel free to read the study you posted above. I have and it recognizes some of the shortcomings in their study, allowing that there are additional factors that they did not consider.

There are studies that go further and break down the possible contributing factors to a much greater degree and those studies have concluded two things. Breed is not a significant characteristic, being far out-weighed by a slew of other factors. And, not surprisingly given the above, breed-specific legislation to reduce the incidence of dog bites has not been found to make a significant difference.

I have repeatedly suggested that you read the more detailed studies. If you don't read the study, at least read the conclusions presented in the abstract.

For the umpteenth time, I don't disagree that pit bulls are responsible for more than their share of problems. Where we differ is that you put forth the genetics as the dominate causal factor and I consider other factors related to their owners and environment are the larger problem. Eliminate pit bulls, without affecting the other factors, and you'll just more the problem to another breed.

It's pretty simple, really.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by javadog

Do me a favor, read the study I posted, and get back to me. This one:

https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726?journalCode=javma

"Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs"

Unless i am misunderstanding, I don't see how someone reading this study could evaluate and rule out breed as a factor when only 17% of the samples had verifiable breed data.

[javadog]

There are various standards used to identify breeds. Breeds that can be positively identified through pedigrees or genetic tests are a small number. A larger group includes those that are identified by their physical characteristics by people trained in the field. Obviously, there's some uncertainty in this. The group then expands to breeds identified by people without any expertise (the public, the media, etc.) which has a huge amount of error.

I've read other studies that have different sample sizes and tighter controls on "breed" and they came to similar conclusions.

It's an imperfect world, but the intent is that they control for many more factors, in an attempt to eliminate as much error as possible. Most statistical compilations don't make that attempt.

JR

[javadog]

If you want to learn more about the problem of breed misidentification, here are some resources:

https://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/research-library/visual-breed-identification-literature-review

[javadog]

Another source for the study linked above, in post 122 and many earlier posts:

https://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/research-library/summary-analysis-co-occurrence-potentially-preventable-factors-256-dog-bite-related

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by gtc

"Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs"

Unless i am misunderstanding, I don't see how someone reading this study could evaluate and rule out breed as a factor when only 17% of the samples had verifiable breed data.

It's also pretty hard to miss the fact that while they identified 20 culpable breeds and two mixes, they do not specify what breeds they were or where they ranked. Why would they leave such vital information out of their results? They provide plenty of numbers regarding the other aspects of fatal dog attacks. They make the assertion that "breed is not a factor", and then fail to show us the numbers that they must certainly have. Curious.

In sharp contrast, the studies I posted above, and on other threads, very specifically identify the breeds in the instances in which they were in fact identifiable. So do the many other studies and statistic posted by other participants in these various threads. "Pit bulls", and their many variations, win every time by a very, very lopsided majority, even though they only represent about 6% of our canine population. That's when we can see the numbers for ourselves. It's only when we are not allowed to see them that "breed is not a factor". Curious. Again.

For some entertaining reading, google "pit bull apologists". My god, some of those writers are either reading along on this thread, or they know javadog personally.

[javadog]

A useful read:

https://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/injurious-dog-bites/causes-and-prevention

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

For some entertaining reading, google "pit bull apologists". My god, some of those writers are either reading along on this thread, or they know javadog personally.

You need to educate yourself as to the difference between correlation and causation. You don't seem to get it.

You also need to consider that breed identification is a problem larger than previously thought and it affects your beloved statistics, too.

I fail to see how you cannot understand the points I am making. They aren't hard to grasp.

I'd also like to remind you that you have no ownership experience with the breed in question. If I recall correctly, you don't even own a dog. That might explain why you're not up to speed on dog behavior. There's a lot more knowledge out there than even 10 years ago and some of us do try to continue learning.



JR

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

It's also pretty hard to miss the fact that while they identified 20 culpable breeds and two mixes, they do not specify what breeds they were or where they ranked. Why would they leave such vital information out of their results? They provide plenty of numbers regarding the other aspects of fatal dog attacks. They make the assertion that "breed is not a factor", and then fail to show us the numbers that they must certainly have. Curious.

In sharp contrast, the studies I posted above, and on other threads, very specifically identify the breeds in the instances in which they were in fact identifiable. So do the many other studies and statistic posted by other participants in these various threads. "Pit bulls", and their many variations, win every time by a very, very lopsided majority, even though they only represent about 6% of our canine population. That's when we can see the numbers for ourselves. It's only when we are not allowed to see them that "breed is not a factor". Curious. Again.

For some entertaining reading, google "pit bull apologists". My god, some of those writers are either reading along on this thread, or they know javadog personally.

Let me make two further comments, since you seem to be having difficulty understanding what you read. With respect to the lack of a list of the breeds and other details that you mentioned above, I should point out that you're reading an abstract of the article. Detailed data can be found in the actual article. Your failure to grasp that simple notion does not speak highly of you. You do understand what an abstract is, correct? In the business world, it's like an executive summary.

There other fallacy that seems to trip you up is that your statistics "don't talk about breed misidentification." In fact, they do, if you happen to read them in more detail. Having said that, look at the more recent studies that I referenced above that have concluded that breed misidentification is a much greater problem than previously thought, which tends to largely invalidate earlier studies.

[Jeff Higgins]

O.k., tell you what - let's just put an end to this nonsense. We are both better than to be going after each other like this. You have my apologies, and my promise to lay off of the pit bull posts. I know you love your dogs. I love mine as well. I have a wonderful new pup who just turned nine months, my third Golden Retriever after a string of Labs. I really enjoy their company and working in the field with them (three earned their AKC Master Hunter ratings under my training and handling). So, yes, I do understand the bond between man and animal, and I'm glad you are getting as much reward and satisfaction from your as I am from mine. I don't have to tell you it's a very special bond.

So, again, I'm sorry. I'll knock it off. You seem like a great guy, and I don't want this kind of animosity between us. Give your dog a pat on the head and a scratch behind the ear for me.

[Joe Bob]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Give your dog a pat on the head and a scratch behind the ear for me.

As long the Pitty doesn't rip yer arm off....

[Crowbob]

Can't we all just get along?

There's no good reason for mosquitoes or pit bulls.

Breeds can be bred to a certain temperament or trait. Unfortunately for Pits, the breeding has been toward aggression because that's what people think they want - until they get their face bitten off. Some are nice, some are not, some have a trigger - which are the ones that will hurt you.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

O.k., tell you what - let's just put an end to this nonsense. We are both better than to be going after each other like this. You have my apologies, and my promise to lay off of the pit bull posts. I know you love your dogs. I love mine as well. I have a wonderful new pup who just turned nine months, my third Golden Retriever after a string of Labs. I really enjoy their company and working in the field with them (three earned their AKC Master Hunter ratings under my training and handling). So, yes, I do understand the bond between man and animal, and I'm glad you are getting as much reward and satisfaction from your as I am from mine. I don't have to tell you it's a very special bond.

So, again, I'm sorry. I'll knock it off. You seem like a great guy, and I don't want this kind of animosity between us. Give your dog a pat on the head and a scratch behind the ear for me.

C'mon Jeff.....don't give up the fight! I enjoy your pit bull posts!

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Baz

C'mon Jeff.....don't give up the fight! I enjoy your pit bull posts!

Just wait until I start a doberhuahua thread...it ain't over by a long shot