# This guy is an Idiot BSL CA



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

http://www.swaylove.org/bslbdl/pasadena


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

I hear a sound discussion with data and recommendations. How would you counter that?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Well his statistics, his understanding of statistics, and understanding what a pit bull IS (bit bull breedS, lol) are all suspect. And that's just in the first 59 seconds, I couldn't watch the rest.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Me either, I watched like the first minute and couldn't watch the rest.

Like gun control laws BSL only hurts those who FOLLOW the law ... It doesn't hurt the criminals and law BREAKERS who will "do it anyway". What people also don't realize is that THEIR BREED COULD BE NEXT! I would love to see people's reaction when its labs or Goldens on the chopping block.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Well he mentioned 2 key data points,

1. Pit Bulls make up about 5% of pet population
2. 50% of dog bite fatalities are caused by this breed

Is it true or false? If false what are the correct numbers?


----------



## serges (Jan 7, 2014)

hate him!!!!


----------



## Fade (Feb 24, 2012)

quatro said:


> Well he mentioned 2 key data points,
> 
> 1. Pit Bulls make up about 5% of pet population
> 2. 50% of dog bite fatalities are caused by this breed
> ...



Its not a true of false answer so I will attempt to explain.

The data is wrong. For a few reasons. Many dogs labeled as pit bulls are not pit bulls. As a matter of fact most even self declared pit bulls are not pit bulls. A true breed standard for a pit bull eliminates human aggression completely. If a dog has a block head. its labeled a pit bull. or pit bull mix. Even though it may in fact ( most likely) contain no pit bull at all. Or if they do have pit bull in them who knows what personality it will actually take on? Take my American Bully for example. They were recently separated as a new breed by the UKC. They look similar to a pit bull but have very different personality traits. and most people would label him as a pit bull. As a matter of fact he was sold as a pit bull to his first owners and then adopted as a pit bull to me. until I reviewed his pedigree.

if a dog is a Lab / Golden ret / German shep mix. it may be labeled as any of those breeds at different shelters. ( as long as you might guess that the breed is in the dog )
If a dog has a block head its almost always labeled as a pit bull creating huge amounts of pit bulls or pit bull mixes. ( that may not even have pit bull in them at all!)

To start creating real hardcore data one would have to prove a dog is a pit bull. people say "pit bull " like dog. but its really a stupid term because dog breeds are individual and bred to do certain things. A hound is bred to track. A Collie is bred to herd. A Husky is bred to pull. A Chow was bred to guard. A Pit bull was bred to work/ fight other dogs. From my experience in the animal field when you get a mixed breed dog...you do not know what bred traits it might display. And being a pit bull should positively never be people aggressive. who knows why these dogs are biting? I can give a few reasons.

I do know a lot of dog bites occur when people try to break up a dog fight. I do not care what breed of dog it is...you do not get in the middle of a dog fight!
Pit bulls ARE many times Dog aggressive. This is because we as humans made them this way. This I think is a huge contributing factor. Dog aggression is not human aggression. Dogs are not evil if they kill or attack other dogs or animals. They are in fact animals and were bred to be dog aggressive and also some dogs have very high prey drives. and pit bulls are Terriers and terriers have high prey drives.

A lot of irresponsible owners (many involved in bad practices like drug dealing and other illegal street activities ) have self declared pit bulls because they are " cool" dogs. and these dogs are not raised properly. 

There are huge amounts of stray declared pit bulls many let loose on the street. this experience can create a dog that is not fair to label as a breed failure. Any dog released on the street might be a dangerous dog because of circumstance.

Pit bulls are strong. A Chihuahua bite might not show up in the news but a pit bull bite ( like other large breeds) can do damage because they are strong dogs. 

Many dog bite statistics are not reported in the news if they are not pit bulls. THIS! A few years ago a loose German Shep. Barreled into a apartment that was left open because the mother was carrying in groceries. The dog jumped her young child and put him in the hospital. This report did not even make the back page of the newspaper. but a pit bull killing a family cat makes a big news story and huge aftermath. The other day there was a news article about a man that was killed by his Boxer and people started saying its code word for pit bull. and that boxers are now really pit bulls. >.< people are crazy


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

I hate restrictions, as I'm sure most responsible people do, telling me what breed I can/cannot own. But at the same time, he has valid points. At the pitbulls around my area, I have seen firsthand, are nothing but trouble makers 90% of the time, sadly. Is it the dogs fault? absolutely not, it's the owners. I think his data is correct but the course of action taken should be different. As to what that course of action may be, I have no clue. =)


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Well he mentioned 2 key data points,
> 
> 1. Pit Bulls make up about 5% of pet population
> 2. 50% of dog bite fatalities are caused by this breed
> ...


You may find this interesting -- it's the most recent, very comprehensive study of dog-bite-related fatalities.



> The five authors, two of whom are on the staff of the National Canine Research Council (NCRC),[5] and one of whom (Dr. Jeffrey Sacks) was lead author on earlier studies of DBRFs, analyzed all the DBRFs known to have occurred during the ten-year period 2000 – 2009. Rather than rely predominantly on information contained in news accounts, as had previous studies of DBRFs, detailed case histories were compiled using reports by homicide detectives and animal control agencies, and interviews with investigators.
> 
> ...
> 
> The authors of the new JAVMA paper reported that the breed(s) of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases. News accounts disagreed with each other and/or with animal control reports in a significant number of incidents, casting doubt on the reliability of breed attributions and more generally for using media reports as a primary source of data for scientific studies. In only 45 (18%) of the cases in this study could these researchers make a valid determination that the animal was a member of a distinct, recognized breed. Twenty different breeds, along with two known mixes, were identified in connection with those 45 incidents.


The whole thing is interesting and I recommend giving it a read. Victoria Stilwell also summed it up in a blog entry here.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

I don't think ANY of these dogs even remotely resembles a Pit bull.
The statistics on this issue are very flawed considering the people labeling these breeds are not dog educated at ALL


And while there are A LOT of Bybs involved in breeding "bully breed mixes" which can contribute to dogs with a bad temperament, that is not a problem with Pit Bulls, that is a problem with PEOPLE and banning these dogs will ONLY punish good owners, make them more desirable to criminals, and will simply make people choose another dog to neglect.A lot of breeds have gone through the very same thing the Pit Bull is now, and because of bad breeders a lot of these dogs are suffering because of it. A good Pit Bull breeder would absolutely not breed a dog with HA tendencies, it is a FAULT in the breed and any HA dog should be CULLED. I don't need a nanny government protecting me from DOGS. Statically you are more likely to be killed by a deer, in your bath tub, in a car accident, from alcohol, cigarettes, ect, than from a Pit Bull, if we ban everything that poses a potential threat, what will we have left?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

quatro said:


> Well he mentioned 2 key data points,
> 
> 1. Pit Bulls make up about 5% of pet population
> 2. 50% of dog bite fatalities are caused by this breed
> ...


It's irrelevant if those specific numbers are true or false. What is relevant to assessing the relative risk of a bite from any particular breed is the number of bites expressed as a rate of the population of that breed. I typed up a super long explanation of it once in one of the pit bull threads around here once, and I'm not doing it again, but if you're actually interested you could probably find it in a search.

I did also once go through and calculate the relative bite risks for several different breeds as a matter of personal curiousity, sadly I didn't save that data but they were all pretty equivalent at the end of the day. And the exercise of looking up population data on various breeds makes me very, very skeptical of that 5% claim.

That's not even accounting for misidentification of breeds and under-reporting of bites from other breeds.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

sassafras said:


> It's irrelevant if those specific numbers are true or false. What is relevant to assessing the relative risk of a bite from any particular breed is the number of bites expressed as a rate of the population of that breed. I typed up a super long explanation of it once in one of the pit bull threads around here once, and I'm not doing it again.
> 
> I did also once go through and calculate the relative risks for several different breeds, sadly I didn't save that data but they were all pretty equivalent. *And the exercise of looking up population data on various breeds makes me very, very skeptical of that 5% claim.*
> 
> That's not even accounting for misidentification of breeds and under-reporting of bites from other breeds.


 seriously a good 70% of the dogs i see around here and around my family in NY are bully type mixes


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> You may find this interesting -- it's the most recent, very comprehensive study of dog-bite-related fatalities.
> 
> 
> 
> The whole thing is interesting and I recommend giving it a read. Victoria Stilwell also summed it up in a blog entry here.


I always love when you come to these threads because you always have such interesting links 

In general, I was watching en episode of wild justice and the game warden was seeing a person whose dog got beat up by a wild turkey and he called it a pittie ... It was some kind of brindle mix dog, it didn't even look like a pit bull :/ yet the warden's all like on his radio "the dog is a pit bull" ... Puleeze :/ that dog was no more a pit bill then Josefina is.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Well, no data except in the first post! Emotions and opinions do not count, hard data does. So if you want to fight the impending law, bring hard data, not emotions.


----------



## asuna (Sep 26, 2013)

pit bulls or pit looking breeds are already banned where i live, however i see many of them everywhere


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Well, no data except in the first post! Emotions and opinions do not count, hard data does. So if you want to fight the impending law, bring hard data, not emotions.


Um it's not opinion that most people have no clue what a Pit bull looks like, and that this greatly effects the out come of dog bite statistics..It's also not an opinion that the dogs are suffering heavily from bad breeding, just like GSDs did when they were considered the "big bad dog" to own..It's also not opinion that BSL does not WORK and that many countries who had BSL in the past no longer do because they realized that BSL does not work, and ONLY punishes the responsible people and their dogs.. The criminals do not care if their dog is illegal, in fact it probably boosts their ego.. I think it's funny you are siding with him with a GSD as your avatar.. Yeahh GSD's NEVER bite anyone and are never effected by BSL


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Here are a bunch of examples of dogs who attacked mislabeled as Pit Bulls and therefor were added to "Pit Bull dog bite statistics"
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm


The fact is unless you have a ped to back it up there is no way of knowing for sure if a dog is a Pit bull or pit bull mix, as MANY breeds and mixes can have Pit bull like characteristics..The word Pit Bull attracts A LOT more publicity so of course any short haired dog is going to be labeled a "Pit Bull" by the media


----------



## Fade (Feb 24, 2012)

quatro said:


> Well, no data except in the first post! Emotions and opinions do not count, hard data does. So if you want to fight the impending law, bring hard data, not emotions.


 Your speaking about data but fail to read the posts thoroughly and even the data that was posted. research the data yourself. and data is not always true because a comprehensive study has to factor in so many things. finding out the sources of the data is important. Like where the data and statistics come from. To get a true data on a subject this in depth is going to take a lot of research. There are a lot o f factors going into hardcore data and the data they are quoting is not valid because they fail to factor in so many things. So if you want a GOOD comprehensive study that does take into account many factors. 

You actually have to READ this study to get any information out of it. and its long so read on its very interesting. and I think this study factors in a lot of important things when studying this issue. 

New comprehensive Study on dog attacks by JAVMA This study breaks down that "Data" they are referring too in the video clip. 

The authors of the new JAVMA paper reported that the breed(s) of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases


News accounts disagreed with each other and/or with animal control reports in a significant number of incidents, casting doubt on the reliability of breed attributions and more generally for using media reports as a primary source of data for scientific studies. 

In only 45 (18%) of the cases in this study could these researchers make a valid determination that the animal was a member of a distinct, recognized breed. Twenty different breeds, along with two known mixes, were identified in connection with those 45 incidents.

90% of the dogs described in the new DBRF study’s case files were characterized in at least one media report with a single breed descriptor, potentially implying that the dog was a purebred dog. A distribution heavily weighted toward pure breed is in stark contrast to the findings of population-based studies indicating that ~46% of the dogs in the U.S. are mixed breed.[15] Thus, either the designation of breed in the media reports for the cases under examination was done very loosely, and without regard to possible mixed breed status, or purebred dogs were heavily over-represented.

The most widely publicized previous DBRF study[7] which was based primarily on media reports, qualified the breed identifications obtained in their dataset, pointing out that the identification of a dog’s breed may be subjective, and that even experts can disagree as to the breed(s) of a dog whose parentage they do not know.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Also one must take into consideration when they say pit bulls are only 5% of the dog population they are ONLY counting dogs registered with the AKC, what about all the byb bull breed mutts with no papers? OR ADBA dogs? Or UKC dogs?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

As an Acd owner I can say that in the wrong hands, an Acd has a much higher lotus gal to be dangerous I the wrong hands then most pit bulls I have seen. Most pitties I have seen won't usually challenge humans and are pretty forgiving of handler mistakes, while ACDs are not. I'm not trying to make my breed the new bad guy, I am just being real about them, they are great dogs but they aren't for everyone, just like pitties are great dogs but they aren't for everyone either and any dog who is matched wrong has the potential to be dangerous in their own way whether it's a 5lb chi or a 50lb pit bull. 

Also restrictions don't work ... Because they only hurt those who follow the law, not the ones who break it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I've said it before (mainly because I think child abuse isn't taken seriously enough in this country), but even if EVERY SINGLE dog fatality was caused by a real true pit bull, a child would still be safer with a pit bull than with his/her own parents . Dogs kill about 25-30 people every year in the US (maybe half of them children? I can't find victim age info). About 400 children are killed by direct parental abuse, number goes up to about 1200 if you count deaths due to parental neglect. About 900,000 children receive medical care for abuse/neglect-related injuries every year, about 750,000 people (again, not sure of ages) receive medical care for dog-related injuries every year. Seriously, dogs (any breed) are about the safest thing you're going to be around today :/.

If someone is actually interested in protecting people (instead of making headlines and furthering his political agenda), I can think of a lot of things that are more dangerous and should be banned first .


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

and also, most problems between dogs and kids occur because there wasn't any adult supervision of the children with the dog ... so in a way I guess that would be abuse.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> and also, most problems between dogs and kids occur because there wasn't any adult supervision of the children with the dog ... so in a way I guess that would be abuse.


But. . .the child is actually safer (statistically speaking) with no adult present. Adults are far more dangerous than dogs. Sadly.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

quatro said:


> Well, no data except in the first post! Emotions and opinions do not count, hard data does. So if you want to fight the impending law, bring hard data, not emotions.


If the speaker in the OP does not have a basic enough understanding of statistics to know that he needs to express relative risks as a rate, then his statistics are meaningless and don't have credibility. I don't need to counter meaningless data with more data to know that they aren't relevant. 

Not sure why that is so hard to understand? But I could make up some numbers if you like. :/

This country would be a lot better off if everyone had to take basic epidemiology and statistics classes in high school.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I posted a link to a study that contained no opinion or emotion. It used data from a 10-year period and took breed information from reports by homicide detectives, animal control agencies, and investigators rather than from the media (as a journalist, I can assure you that newspaper sources are terrible because newspaper stories are written quickly and are not always accurate, and retractions will appear in a later newspaper and aren't always seen. When I was fact-checking for a magazine, we weren't even allowed to use newspaper articles as confirmation of anything). Anyway, in more than 80% of cases, the breed couldn't be reliably identified. In 18% of cases (which is 45 cases), 20 different breeds and two known mixes were responsible, showing that no one breed of dog is involved in significantly more fatal attacks than any other. 

Also, like sassafras said, population comes into play as well. Let's say there are 100 akitas in a town, and 1000 pit bulls. This hypothetical town has a high number of dog attacks. In one year, five akitas attack people, and 20 pit bulls attack people. Some people might say, "Wow, pit bulls attack people much more often than akitas do, so they must be more dangerous!" But that is not accurate, because 5/100, or 5%, of the town's akitas have attacked a person, while only 20/1000, or 2% of the pit bulls have. In real life, the percentages are obviously not as neat, but it's a similar idea. There are a lot of pits and pit mixes out there, most not registered at all. I wish I could find stats for you, but all of the sources I can find just say the same thing -- that, while pits outnumber a lot of other breeds, it's not possible to get an accurate count of all of them.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Willowy said:


> But. . .the child is actually safer (statistically speaking) with no adult present. Adults are far more dangerous than dogs. Sadly.


I'm really, _really_ skeptical of that claim. To prove it you'd have to compare the rate of injury to children with and without adult supervision. Considering the _massive_ amount of time children spend safely in the company of adults I think it'll come up awfully short. 

You could possibly prove the second sentence, that there are more incidents of parental injury to children than dog-related injury, but again you'd have to account for the amount of time spent with each. Even if you had those numbers, that's a _far cry_ from showing that children are safer without adults present at all. Frankly, that assertion sounds ridiculous to me. There are pretty significant dangers to leaving children completely unsupervised. Toddlers and children in general are awful at calculating risk, their incidence of accidental injury is pretty dang high.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> I posted a link to a study that contained no opinion or emotion.


The study is pretty meaningless as in most such studies.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

sassafras said:


> If the speaker in the OP does not have a basic enough understanding of statistics to know that he needs to express relative risks as a rate, then his statistics are meaningless and don't have credibility. I don't need to counter meaningless data with more data to know that they aren't relevant.
> 
> Not sure why that is so hard to understand? But I could make up some numbers if you like. :/
> 
> This country would be a lot better off if everyone had to take basic epidemiology and statistics classes in high school.


I agree ... Provided they didn't skip it 

@willowy, I agree wih that, I was just trying to make the point that a majority if dog attacks on kids are the fault of adults as well, this contributing to the hypothesis that adults pose more of a danger to kids then dogs.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

quatro said:


> The study is pretty meaningless as in most such studies.


How so?

It seems pretty hypocritical to ask for hard data and then assert that "most such studies [are] meaningless".


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> The study is pretty meaningless as in most such studies.


Yeah, how so? Unlike all of the other such studies, which have relied on media reports, these guys went to the source -- the people who actually investigated each of these incidents and dealt with the dogs afterward. You're really not going to get much better data than this. Those statistics you quoted earlier in the thread about pit bulls making up 5% of the population and being responsible for 50% of dog bite-related fatalities are from much less thorough studies than this one, and are inaccurate. You asked for the correct numbers, and I provided them with the best (and completely unbiased) source available. If you don't like that... that's too bad, I guess!



> In December, 2013, The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) published the most comprehensive multifactorial study of dog bite-related fatalities (DBRFs) to be completed since the subject was first studied in the 1970’s.


I honestly want to know what could be better than that.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

quatro said:


> The study is pretty meaningless as in most such studies.


If that is the case I would really like to know where "meaningful" data comes from. That study was published in the Journal of the American Vertrenary Medical Association. I'm not super familiar with that journal, but I know that most academic journals are peer reviewed, and must involve scientific method and are not selected to be published unless they meet some pretty high standards. Sure there are "response" sections and editorial sections in many journals, which is where the somewhat more emotional and less rigorously investigated data may come forth, but that was not an editorial piece. Although I do understand the fact/possibility that political and societal motivations may affect what does and does not get published, I would far more trust a peer reviewed article in an academic journal than I would some politician spewing statistics which he likely hasn't spent the time to fully understand!

By the way did you know, that about 63.7% of statistics are made up on the spot?


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

quatro said:


> 50% of dog bite fatalities are caused by this breed
> 
> Is it true or false? If false what are the correct numbers?


Christ, not this again. This has been covered so. many. times. on this forum. 

As others have said, it's neither true nor false. There has never been an official study conducted on dog bite fatalities. Most of the "statistics" you read about were done by BSL advocates who get their information straight from media reports, which is pretty much a huge joke in terms of reliability. Journalists and reporters are quick to slap an attacking dog with a "Pit Bull" label if it viciously mauled someone, because that's what get's ratings. And sometimes, even if they DO know it's not a Pit Bull, they'll still label it as one. I can remember a Sheltie being labeled as a Pit Bull once in an article. 

The closest you're going to get to actual facts is by reading the study crantastic posted.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

aiw said:


> I'm really, _really_ skeptical of that claim. To prove it you'd have to compare the rate of injury to children with and without adult supervision. Considering the _massive_ amount of time children spend safely in the company of adults I think it'll come up awfully short.
> 
> You could possibly prove the second sentence, that there are more incidents of parental injury to children than dog-related injury, but again you'd have to account for the amount of time spent with each. Even if you had those numbers, that's a _far cry_ from showing that children are safer without adults present at all. Frankly, that assertion sounds ridiculous to me. There are pretty significant dangers to leaving children completely unsupervised. Toddlers and children in general are awful at calculating risk, their incidence of accidental injury is pretty dang high.


Yeah, that's true. Especially with babies and toddlers, the benefits of supervision probably outweigh abuse risk. Let's see if I can get something on that. The number of pet dogs and the number of children under 18 is approximately equal in the US (about 75 million each). Each child has 2 parents, but average number of children is 1.9. So we'll say there are also about that number of parents. I don't know if the statistics include non-parental adults responsible for daily care---teachers, daycare workers, etc. And I guess babies and small children spend 24 hours a day with adults. Older kids probably have more unsupervised time. 

From what I can find, dog fatalities are about 50/50 kids/adults. So we'll say 15 kids per year killed by dogs. 400 is about 26 times 15. So for risk to be equal, it would come to a little less than one hour a day with a dog, assuming the child spending 24 hours a day with an adult (which older kids don't, so that's still not quite accurate, but as close as I want to bother with ). I have no idea what the average dog time is for American kids--some basically spend 24 hours a day with dogs, some are never around dogs. 

But I'm pretty sure humans are more dangerous than dogs in all aspects of life. Murder, domestic abuse, random violence. I could add it all up for more mathy fun but I don't wanna .


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

aiw said:


> How so?
> 
> It seems pretty hypocritical to ask for hard data and then assert that "most such studies [are] meaningless".


Where is the hard data in that study? It is super inconclusive = meaningless


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

What you want us to provide doesn't exist then, sorry. Of course, the opposite (proof that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds) doesn't exist either, for the same reason -- both sides would require the same data in order to prove their points.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Willowy said:


> But I'm pretty sure humans are more dangerous than dogs in all aspects of life. Murder, domestic abuse, random violence. I could add it all up for more mathy fun but I don't wanna .


Fair enough!


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> What you want us to provide doesn't exist then, sorry. Of course, the opposite (proof that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds) doesn't exist either, for the same reason -- both sides would require the same data in order to prove their points.


The other side is showing the data!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I am not even sure what you're talking about any more. Post the studies they're getting their data from? I guarantee they are less comprehensive and more meaningless than the one I posted. All of the studies I'm aware of are older and based on media reports rather than interviews with the actual investigators involved.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Send an email to the guy presenting it.


----------



## Fade (Feb 24, 2012)

Quatro are you stating things in an attempt to provoke readers into a emotion response?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

quatro said:


> Where is the hard data in that study? It is super inconclusive = meaningless


The study was not inconclusive, actually the authors put forward several conclusions and provide ample data and sources. I don't mean to be rude, but did you read it? It directly refutes the numbers and methodology used by the man in the video. It may not be the last word on the BSL debate, but its definitely relevant data. 



> The authors of the new JAVMA paper reported that the breed(s) of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases. News accounts disagreed with each other and/or with animal control reports in a significant number of incidents, casting doubt on the reliability of breed attributions and more generally for using media reports as a primary source of data for scientific studies. In only 45 (18%) of the cases in this study could these researchers make a valid determination that the animal was a member of a distinct, recognized breed. Twenty different breeds, along with two known mixes, were identified in connection with those 45 incidents.
> 
> 90% of the dogs described in the new DBRF study’s case files were characterized in at least one media report with a single breed descriptor, potentially implying that the dog was a purebred dog. A distribution heavily weighted toward pure breed is in stark contrast to the findings of population-based studies indicating that ~46% of the dogs in the U.S. are mixed breed.
> 
> * The authors conclude that the potentially preventable factors co-occurring in more than 80% of the DBRFs in their ten-year case file are best addressed by multifactorial public and private strategies.*


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Try to present that as evidence in a court and see how far you can take it


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

If you're trying to provoke me into an emotional response, you may as well give up -- I have just over 5,500 posts here and nobody's managed that yet.

As for this subject, I have no further interest in trying to prove something to someone who doesn't actually want to learn anything -- it's a waste of time. I posted the link (which is, of course, a summary of the study; the study itself is published in a journal you need to subscribe to to read), and anyone who's actually interested in this topic can read it and draw their own conclusions.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

So the guy in the video's data is reliable and meaningful because.... he said so?


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

He is getting the data from somewhere, you need to check the source and determine authenticity. The data presented by the "other side" is not data at all.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> He is getting the data from somewhere, you need to check the source and determine authenticity. The data presented by the "other side" is not data at all.


Actually, _we_ don't need to do that. You are the one who's accepting what he's saying without bothering to even find out what his sources are, let alone verify them, so _you_ are the one who needs to educate yourself and explain to us why our data is flawed and his/yours is better.

(And how do you define data? Because there are any awful lot of numbers and percentages in that study I posted.)


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

All I would like to say is that I have a bridge for sale. It's a real good deal.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

sassafras said:


> All I would like to say is that I have a bridge for sale. It's a real good deal.


But are you a politician? I only buy bridges from politicians, because everyone knows that they are the most trustworthy people around.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Crantastic said:


> But are you a politician? I only buy bridges from politicians, because everyone knows that they are the most trustworthy people around.


They always fact check thoroughly.

And either 5% or 80% of me is a politician.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

sassafras said:


> They always fact check thoroughly.
> 
> And either 5% or 80% of me is a politician.


5% and 80% are practically the same thing. I'm in.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

*fist pump*


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Fade said:


> Quatro are you stating things in an attempt to provoke readers into a emotion response?


Not really, just trying to understand why people are so hateful about the dude presenting his case yet cannot argue his points in a factual manner. Doesn't make sense but this is a forum so not so out of the ordinary either


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

I like this post particularly. There is some "data" (erm... What are we defining data as??). What dog breed gets clumped together? Pitbulls. No wonder they have the most bites. Combine three breeds scores to get the number one most dangerous dawg. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/03/most-dangerous-dog-breeds.html

"...these incidents represent a minute fraction of the total number of dogs out there, the vast majority of whom are loving pets."

Yadadada. The list of dangerous dogs. BSL is dangerous. What dogs are next? Chow Chows, Dalmatians, Malinois, German Shepherds, Dobies, ACDs... Your breed is not safe. 

I tend to believe that bad dogs don't come from a bad breed but rather from bad breeding. I live in the metro Detroit area and the vast majority of dogs are pitbulls, pittie mixes, or are labeled "pitbulls". The amount of pitbulls being bred by ijiots is plain ridiculous. Most studies fail to take into account the sheer amount of one breed in the area. As someone pointed out, if there are 5 Akitas in the city and 2 bite and 100 "pitbulls" in an area and 10 bite... Gee. Those pitbulls are vicious! Jk. Percentage wise, Akitas are "more dangerous". 

All dog owners need to stand against BSL. No breed is safe.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Not really, just trying to understand why people are so hateful about the dude presenting his case yet cannot argue his points in a factual manner. Doesn't make sense but this is a forum so not so out of the ordinary either


I think you're projecting. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm not "hateful" about the guy. I just know he's got his facts wrong. I don't own a pit bull or ever intend to own a pit bull, so I have no personal stake in the outcome of BSL arguments. I'm also legitimately perplexed by your insistence that the study I linked to is not factual. It's the most comprehensive and factual of any study ever done on this subject, and the guy in the video can't possibly be getting his facts from a better study, because no better ones exist. Perhaps you could explain how exactly it's flawed?

Agai, gonna quote someone who has summed it up:



> The Journal of the American Veterinary Association has released the most comprehensive study to date regarding fatal dog bites and the common factors that link them. The authors of the study found that there were some significant errors reported by the media in certain stories, so rather than relying on a potentially biased media source, their findings are based on investigative reports from interviews with animal control agencies, investigators, and homicide detectives.
> 
> Interestingly, the breeds of the dogs involved in fatal attacks could only be identified in 18% of the cases. Often times, the media's report of the dog's breed conflicted with animal control reports. Within that 18%, twenty different breeds were identified, which correlates with previous studies that have found that no single breed of dog is more likely to attack than another. The results of these studies make it clear that the solution to preventing future dog attacks is better management and husbandry practices, and not banning specific breeds.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> I like this post particularly. There is some "data" (erm... What are we defining data as??). What dog breed gets clumped together? Pitbulls. No wonder they have the most bites. Combine three breeds scores to get the number one most dangerous dawg.
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/03/most-dangerous-dog-breeds.html


There you go, the numbers don't lie.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

quatro said:


> There you go, the numbers don't lie.


But the numbers are fudged? Three breeds compromise "pitbulls". How many breeds make up Chow Chows or GSDs?


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Same dog, different names.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

quatro said:


> Same dog, different names.


But not really?


----------



## Hermes1 (Jan 3, 2014)

quatro said:


> I hear a sound discussion with data and recommendations. How would you counter that?


Does not matter whether his figures are correct or not. His data and his whole premise fails to look at all the facts of each specific case and point the blame where it belongs... with the owners of the pit bulls who have attacked. For example, how many of these attacks were the result of a break in to a home, threats to either the dog or to the owner, provocation towards the dog and I could go on. In any of these cases a human attacking the purportrater would likely be considered defending himself and absolved. Such legislation unfairly labels the breed and punishes the many responsible owners. What really drives me nuts with this kind of legislation is, when people hear on the news a story about a child who gets out of the house and some harm comes to the child, people and rightfully so, argue the parents should be held accountable. Yet when a dog bites a person, it's the dogs fault.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

An article on a news website, based on a previous study using (notoriously unreliable and often later retracted) press reports of dog bites, is better than a study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and based on interviews with the people who actually investigated the dog bite fatalities/personally dealt with the dogs? How can anyone with any critical thinking skills whatsoever buy that? I am choosing to believe that quatro is just trying to cause a stir, because the alternative explanation is even more uncharitable of me.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

We had to help a few of such responsible owners who either got chewed up or someone else was bit by their dog. Not fun. Most highly emotional comments are from people who have never had experience with the breed.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> An article on a news website, based on a previous study using (notoriously unreliable and often later retracted) press reports of dog bites, is better than a study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and based on interviews with the people who actually investigated the dog bite fatalities/personally dealt with the dogs? How can anyone with any critical thinking skills whatsoever buy that? I am choosing to believe that quatro is just trying to cause a stir, because the alternative explanation is even more uncharitable of me.


I bow down to your superior critical thinking skills


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I'm a mathematician with a background in statistics. You can make numbers lie in any way you'd want them to.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

quatro said:


> He is getting the data from somewhere, you need to check the source and determine authenticity. The data presented by the "other side" is not data at all.


Well, "somewhere" _is_ the most trustworthy source... right along with "someone". That will certainly hold up much better than peer reviewed studies or expert witnesses in a court of law. I'm convinced!


After all, it must be true "someone" on the internet told me so.



sassafras said:


> So the guy in the video's data is reliable and meaningful because.... he said so?


Do you really think someone would just get on the internet and lie like that?


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Laurelin said:


> I'm a mathematician with a background in statistics. You can make numbers lie in any way you'd want them to.


Can you make a Papillon appear like the #1 dangerous dog that has the most kills under it's belt?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

quatro said:


> Where is the hard data in that study? It is super inconclusive = meaningless





Crantastic said:


> An article on a news website, based on a previous study using (notoriously unreliable and often later retracted) press reports of dog bites, is better than a study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and based on interviews with the people who actually investigated the dog bite fatalities/personally dealt with the dogs? How can anyone with any critical thinking skills whatsoever buy that? I am choosing to believe that quatro is just trying to cause a stir, because the alternative explanation is even more uncharitable of me.


No kidding. There's not even any sources listed. So I can throw out any numbers and suddenly I have 'statistics'?

The study Cran linked was inconclusive in that it wasn't able to say X Breed is the dangerous one, ban them! The fact that it was inconclusive is actually part of the point... dog breeds were not able to be conclusively identified in most cases. This makes many previous studies suspect because they have shown that the data they had previously been using (news reports) was suspect. 

Plus, all that Cran linked to was a summary of the actual study. I am sure the full study was much more thorough. Are you familiar at all with scientific journals?


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Have you handled dominant aggressive pit bulls?


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

quatro said:


> Have you handled dominant aggressive pit bulls?


Does that matter? I thought you guys were talking "data" and "statistics"...


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Emmett said:


> Does that matter? I thought you guys were talking "data" and "statistics"...


Oh yes it matters.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Emmett said:


> Does that matter? I thought you guys were talking "data" and "statistics"...


No, no, most such studies "are meaningless" its all about 'anecdata'.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

quatro said:


> Oh yes it matters.


Why? Are only people who have "handled dominant aggressive pit bulls" allowed to have opinions about the validity and interpretation of "data", "statistics" and studies?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Have you handled dominant aggressive pit bulls?


I've encountered more aggressive labs in my life than I have aggressive pit bulls, so I am concluding that labs are more dangerous than pit bulls. BAM! Science.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

quatro said:


> Have you handled dominant aggressive pit bulls?


This is silly. 

I once pet a nice pitbull on the head. That doesn't make all pitbulls nice (or say that all pitbulls want my affection). I once saw a very unstable and nervy GSD being handled in a pet store. Does that make all GSD unstable and nervy?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

The study you liked was this one:

"Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from *press accounts *since 1982"

A non scientific journal summarizing press accounts. Just pointing that part out. It's hardly a reliable source.



> Have you handled dominant aggressive pit bulls?


Me? Not sure why that would matter. Yeah I worked in a kill shelter in south texas for a few years. I'd say about 60% of the intake was pit bulls. I'm guessing this is the 'you have toy dogs therefore have no dog 'real' dog experience thing?'

Just so we're clear, I'm not a big pit bull fan. I wouldn't own one or a similar breed. Not my kind of dogs. I'll stick to my paps and herding breeds.

What I mean by manipulating data is that you can paint a picture that is swayed or untrue or only showing a partial truth. The study (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24436191/...U-S-Canada-September-1982-to-December-22-2009) combines 3 breeds into the pit bull category. Also this one referencing it (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/03/most-dangerous-dog-breeds.html) uses the 'registered' dogs of the breed to compare population to fatal attacks. Which breed and which registry? I'd say the vast majority of pits aren't registered. The way it is shown in that study makes it seem like almost every pit bull is out there killing people.

Also in that study some of these 'attacks' are included:



> Pit bull terrier:
> One case involved a dog who assisted in a killing carried out by a human. Another casewas a 6-year-old girl who was caught and strangled by a pit bull’s chain. An 83-year-old victim was killedby either a German shepherd/Labrador mix or a pit bull terrier, but it was not clear whether both dogsattacked her, or just one of them. One case involved a woman who was apparently killed by two pit bullsand one Rottweiler. Rashawn Thompson, 18, was mauled on 4/25/07 by 13 dogs, including one pit bulland 12 of unidentifiable mix. As many as 27 pit bull puppies in August 2008 used terminal cancer patientMichael Warner, 55, “as a food source,” according to Pierce County sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer.Warner died from his injuries.


And so on. (I cut it off because it was just more of the same.) Should those REALLY count as pit bulls attacking people? First case, human caused the death of another person, dog helped. Second one- accident. 3rd- It may have been a pit but maybe not. So let's count it as a pit. Etc.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

I hope none of you get chewed up or fluffy mangled by one. Then maybe you could distinguish the data from the smokescreen.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> I hope none of you get chewed up or fluffy mangled by one. Then maybe you could distinguish the data from the smokescreen.


What you don't seem to get is that personal experiences don't change facts. I could absolutely detest pit bulls, and I'd still have to recognize the results of that comprehensive study. A pit bull could kill one of my dogs, and I'd still have to recognize the results of that study. Someone who lets personal experiences and emotion change how they recognize _facts_ is the one with the problem.

(And I thought we were talking about human aggression, anyway. How is "fluffy" getting mangled relevant to this discussion? Dog aggression and human aggression are separate things, and all good pit bull owners and advocates are quick to agree that DA is common in the breed. That has nothing to do with the dog bite fatalities you asked about.)


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

quatro said:


> I hope none of you get chewed up or fluffy mangled by one. Then maybe you could distinguish the data from the smokescreen.


What about people who get chewed up by Dobies, Rotts, and GSDs? Should we ban them too? They are all quite popular in my area and frankly, I'm more scared of a random GSD than a random Pittie. We've got some nasty "breeders" in these parts (of several breeds. I've met a lot of unsavory Labs and Bichons recently).


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> What you don't seem to get is that personal experiences don't change facts. I could absolutely detest pit bulls, and I'd still have to recognize the results of that comprehensive study. A pit bull could kill one of my dogs, and I'd still have to recognize the results of that study. Someone who lets personal experiences and emotion change how they recognize _facts_ is the one with the problem.
> 
> (And I thought we were talking about human aggression, anyway. How is "fluffy" getting mangled relevant to this discussion? Dog aggression and human aggression are separate things, and all good pit bull owners and advocates are quick to agree that DA is common in the breed. That has nothing to do with the dog bite fatalities you asked about.)


Agree to totally disagree. Why do you think pavilions are not the subject of BSL and certain breeds are?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Agree to totally disagree. Why do you think pavilions are not the subject of BSL and certain breeds are?


Because papillons are small. No more, no less. Papillons could bite people more often than pits, for all I know. People just aren't afraid of them, because they are small.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> What about people who get chewed up by Dobies, Rotts, and GSDs? Should we ban them too? They are all quite popular in my area and frankly, I'm more scared of a random GSD than a random Pittie. We've got some nasty "breeders" in these parts (of several breeds. I've met a lot of unsavory Labs and Bichons recently).


Sigh, I give up! Wonder why the BSL does not specify those breeds...hmmm.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

quatro said:


> Agree to totally disagree. Why do you think pavilions are not the subject of BSL and certain breeds are?


Paps aren't big enough to kill a person. Any dog breed over 40lb+ starts to get "dangerous". 

Though I'd like to keep my fingers.

^^BSL often does cover those breeds .


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

My GSDx was really dog aggressive and they were not always looked at very kindly. He is one reason I'd not own a breed prone to dog aggression. I don't want the liability.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Enough entertainment for me, signing out ladies. Will check back tomorrow.


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

quatro said:


> I hope none of you get chewed up or fluffy mangled by one. Then maybe you could distinguish the data from the smokescreen.


And you were talking about THEM being emotional and not looking at the facts? You're the only one talking from personal experience which, for someone so worried about data, means basically nothing. 

People love cocker spaniels but the only spaniels I ever met were mean and bit me. All spaniels are mean and bite! Oh, btw... All the bites were un-reported, even the one where I was bitten in my sleep, because the dogs belonged to family.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Enough entertainment for me, signing out ladies. Will check back tomorrow.


Oh no, don't leave! It's no fun when the only replies to a thread are rational ones. Now I'll have to go do something else, I guess.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I'm just sad no one commented on this part:



> Another casewas a 6-year-old girl who was caught and strangled by a pit bull’s chain.


I still can't believe that would be considered a dog attack!


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I think you're projecting emotion onto people, honestly. I'm not hateful, and I'm not sure how I'm being emotional by talking about relative risks and rates per population.

If BSL was effective at reducing dog bites and dog attack fatalities, there would be a lot of really [email protected] evidence of that coming out of countries and cities that have already enacted it and have had it for years. Yet, oddly, you never see anyone presenting any such evidence whatsoever when campaigning for BSL, just the same old irrelevant data. I wonder why? Could it be because there isn't any evidence because it doesn't actually have any effect?

I'd rather see the time and money people spend on trying to pass BSL go into putting dog bite prevention education into every elementary school in this country. But that's not an easy answer, it's not sexy and controversial and doesn't give people warm fuzzies, so no politicians will ever get behind it.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Someone just sent me this link to post here. Maybe this is where the dude in video is getting his data.
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

sassafras said:


> I think you're projecting emotion onto people, honestly. I'm not hateful, and I'm not sure how I'm being emotional by talking about relative risks and rates per population.
> 
> If BSL was effective at reducing dog bites and dog attack fatalities, there would be a lot of really [email protected] evidence of that coming out of countries and cities that have already enacted it and have had it for years. Yet, oddly, you never see anyone presenting any such evidence whatsoever when campaigning for BSL, just the same old irrelevant data. I wonder why? Could it be because there isn't any evidence because it doesn't actually have any effect?
> 
> I'd rather see the time and money people spend on trying to pass BSL go into putting dog bite prevention education into every elementary school in this country. But that's not an easy answer, it's not sexy and controversial and doesn't give people warm fuzzies, so no politicians will ever get behind it.


Yep, in fact, dog bites went UP in my city after Pit Bulls were banned.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Oh no, don't leave! It's no fun when the only replies to a thread are rational ones. Now I'll have to go do something else, I guess.


So sorry to have robbed you of further rationality


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Someone just sent me this link to post here. Maybe this is where the dude in video is getting his data.
> http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php


Oh man, I hope not! That's one of the worst sources of all.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Oh man, I hope not! That's one of the worst sources of all.


Does not look like a smoke screen!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Does not look like a smoke screen!


Here, read this: http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/03/the-truth-behind-dogsbiteorg.html


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Kuma'sMom said:


> Yep, in fact, dog bites went UP in my city after Pit Bulls were banned.


Oh, look, you're not alone... http://stopbsl.org/bsloverview/the-failure-to-improve-safety/

I'm sure ALL the links and cites on that page are useless, though.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

sassafras said:


> Oh, look, you're not alone... http://stopbsl.org/bsloverview/the-failure-to-improve-safety/
> 
> I'm sure ALL the links and cites on that page are useless, though.


Well, yeah, they deal in actual FACTS! Can't have that, facts are just a smoke screen, after all!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Oh, look, you're not alone... http://stopbsl.org/bsloverview/the-failure-to-improve-safety/
> 
> I'm sure ALL the links and cites on that page are useless, though.


Of course they are. Dogsbite.org is the one true bastion of truth left in this world! It's definitely not a website run by one single person who irrationally hates pit bulls, or anything. No emotion involved there whatsoever. No siree.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Looks like 2 different religions. Up to the individuals to decide which side to choose. But why is one side winning with majority of BSL having pit bull listed? Major conspiracy!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Looks like 2 different religions. Up to the individuals to decide which side to choose. But why is one side winning with majority of BSL having pit bull listed? Major conspiracy!


What? Seriously. What does this even mean? Is this somehow proving a point in your mind?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

quatro said:


> But why is one side winning with majority of BSL having pit bull listed?


Because people like easy answers?


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Yes, why are PB's listed on vast majority if not all BSL's in not only US but world wide? If not true then it has to be a major conspiracy by the evil.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

sassafras said:


> Because people like easy answers?


Very rational, I like it.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

quatro said:


> Yes, why are PB's listed on vast majority if not all BSL's in not only US but world wide? If not true then it has to be a major conspiracy by the evil.


Did you even look at the link I posted? The one that showed that BSL doesn't actually reduce dog bites? 

I don't think there's a conspiracy of evil. I think that people are ignorant and want easy answers.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

sassafras said:


> Did you even look at the link I posted? The one that showed that BSL doesn't actually reduce dog bites?
> 
> I don't think there's a conspiracy of evil. I think that people are ignorant and want easy answers.


Somehow the ignorant people are winning world wide, not only in the US. Are the smart people that clueless?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Sigh, I give up! Wonder why the BSL does not specify those breeds...hmmm.


UM BSL DOES target Rotties and GSDs, Both of these breeds HAVE been banned in multiple places. GSDs were banned in Australia from 1929-1990, Cumberland County, North Carolina banned Dobermans, Rottweilers, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, Great Danes, Pitbulls, Mastiffs (all bully breeds), Akitas and Huskies. Also that site you support Dogsbite.org also wants to ban a lot more breeds than just Pit Bulls


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> UM BSL DOES target Rotties and GSDs, Both of these breeds HAVE been banned in multiple places. GSDs were banned in Australia from 1929-1990, Cumberland County, North Carolina banned Dobermans, Rottweilers, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, Great Danes, Pitbulls, Mastiffs (all bully breeds), Akitas and Huskies. Also that site you support Dogsbite.org also wants to ban a lot more breeds than just Pit Bulls


Can find details by state and township here. The other breeds do not even make up 1%
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Locations/BSLListings.htm


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Can find details by state and township here. The other breeds do not even make up 1%
> http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Locations/BSLListings.htm


 I realize Pit bulls are the number one targeted breed, but other breeds ARE targeted, and opening the door for Pit Bulls to be banned opens the door for a wide variety of other breeds to be banned.You said BSL doesn't target other breeds but they do, and most people who support BSL support the banning of other "dangerous breeds" the focus is just on Pit Bulls at the moment. Since you take that politiciansl word for it, what about the Obamas http://www.care2.com/greenliving/obama-makes-statement-against-breed-specific-legislation.html

Italy also had banned a large number of breeds and than revoked the ban when realizing it DID NOT reduce dog bites


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

quatro said:


> Somehow the ignorant people are winning world wide, not only in the US. Are the smart people that clueless?


I actually have no idea what you are even trying to prove. This may be the first time that I stop replying to a thread because it's just so dang confusing. 

BSL doesn't work. The countries where it's been enacted haven't seen decreases in dog bites - I'm not sure what other data anyone would need to demonstrate that it's useless. 

Although the idea that it's a surprise that public opinion is easy to sway regardless of facts is... intriguing.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Have you handled dominant aggressive pit bulls?


I have handled A LOT of bully breeds,some of them with behavioral problems most of them dog aggressive, what is your point?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Somehow the ignorant people are winning world wide, not only in the US. Are the smart people that clueless?


Smart people can be ignorant; ignorant isn't synonymous with unintelligent. When someone is ignorant of a topic, all that means is that they don't know much about it -- they're lacking knowledge. So yes, a lot of smart people will vote to pass BSL because they don't bother looking into it and educating themselves on it -- perhaps they just take the word of a politician who is relying on flawed studies, for example. When smart people actually take time to look into the studies and understand the facts, they can see that BSL doesn't actually work. That's why we're seeing BSL being repealed in some locations.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Well then why can't you prove that "they" are wrong? Time for a wake up call, ring ring.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Well then why can't you prove that "they" are wrong? Time for a wake up call, ring ring.


Um all of us have sent you links and studies that show why BSL is flawed, but they don't matter because you don't want them too.. The CDC and the WHITE HOUSE says BSL is flawed


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

quatro said:


> Well then why can't you prove that "they" are wrong? Time for a wake up call, ring ring.


Once again, did you look at the link with all the data citations about how BSL has not reduced dog bites in countries where it has been enacted, and in the case of the UK has officially been deemed a failure? 

How is that... not proof?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Well then why can't you prove that "they" are wrong? Time for a wake up call, ring ring.


We did. You are just being willfully ignorant of the facts. Nothing we can do will change that.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> We did. You are just being willfully ignorant of the facts. Nothing we can do will change that.


Yes, you are correct on that point. I don't believe in superstition.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Yes, you are correct on that point. I don't believe in superstition.


Okay? I didn't realize that facts and superstition were synonymous, but you learn something new every day.

...Well, I do. Some people refuse to.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Get some sleep sweetie.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Once again, did you look at the link with all the data citations about how BSL has not reduced dog bites in countries where it has been enacted, and in the case of the UK has officially been deemed a failure?
> 
> How is that... not proof?





quatro said:


> Yes, you are correct on that point. I don't believe in superstition.


So that's a no, then. Gotcha, sweetie.


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

Exactly, if BSL wins with pit bulls, then guess what, nothing to stop them from banning all of the other dangerous breeds, including the GSD in your picture. In fact I can guarantee you after bully breeds rotties, GSDs and Dobes will be next. Eventually no one will have any dogs, but at least no one will be bit. Meanwhile thousands of people will die every day from car crashes, guns, cigarettes, etc. Makes total sense.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Get some sleep sweetie.


Aww, you've run out of arguments and have resorted to sarcastically addressing me with endearments! That's adorable.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

quatro said:


> Well then why can't you prove that "they" are wrong? Time for a wake up call, ring ring.


Why is it difficult to disprove an amorphous group of people's undefined, superstitious feelings?



Crantastic said:


> Okay? I didn't realize that facts and superstition were synonymous, but you learn something new every day.
> 
> ...Well, I do. Some people refuse to.


Peer-reviewed academia is superstition but news reports and moral panic is "data".

This thread is magical. Oh dear, does that make me one of "them"?

Oops! Past his bedtime!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I have not watched the video as the PC I am on at the moment has no sound. 

I have also not digested all the posts...points of views... etc..


I will say this.... Anyone that assumes the five percent figure is correct... I want some of what you are smoking....

Secondly.... 50 percent of fatal bites... More smoking good stuff...


But NONE of that matters. 

Before you can even begin to decide If those figures are important in the least. you have to ask... Is there a certain type of person owns the dogs that are causing fatalities. A certain race of people? People in a certain geographic area? People from a specific socio economic background? People that live in a rural or urban setting? People that have achieved a certain level of education? People from a certain income bracket? Married people versus single people? People from assorted religious backgrounds? 

There are a thousand ownership factors.....A thousand dog factors..... A thousand additional factors that go into a fatal dog bite.....


I saw as I scrolled through posts an ACD owner comment on ACDs....

But I have to say, for whatever reason, ACD owners tend to do a STELLAR job..... I LOVE em!!!! But how ACDs are not the scourge of the first world, I will never know...
ACDs are pre disposed to and have bloody mayhem written all over them. 



Anyway.... I digress..... 

And specifically.... Quatro.... From your photo... What are you involved in? IPO? Mondio? French Ring? 

And you are going to follow the argument you have chosen? Really? Seriously?


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And specifically.... Quatro.... From your photo... What are you involved in? IPO? Mondio? French Ring?
> 
> And you are going to follow the argument you have chosen? Really? Seriously?


You've got a great point there Johnny Bandit...but I think Quatro has chosen his stance and isn't open to any other argument other than that one. 

Quatro, could you please reply to what I was curious about before and tell us all what you would consider as "meaningful data" and what the sources of that data might be....and perhaps why their data is more meaningful than the data you seem to be adhering to. You've talked about your personal experiences with mean dogs that will mangle a person....but you were talking about data before, so I'm not interested in your personal experiences, I want to know about your data. Has it been peer-reviewed, what kind of faults there might be in that data, the individuals who were the sources of that data and if they have any affiliations with particular political stances that may be biased towards a BSL lobby, and why it is still robust data despite those faults. 

And please, don't call me sweetie if you reply. I find it quite insulting and patronizing.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

sassafras said:


> I actually have no idea what you are even trying to prove. This may be the first time that I stop replying to a thread because it's just so dang confusing.


I gave up. There's not even a debate going on. One side is posting links to studies and the other is just posting condescending remarks that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. It would be laughable if it wasn't a serious subject.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I just... wow. I don't even know what to think about how this thread has gone. So bizarre.

I could offer my own anecdotal experience but I don't feel like that would help anything at this point.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm just sitting here being amused that someone who apparently likes GSDs and bite sports is supporting BSL.


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

Exactly Willowy! I own a pit bull mix and a GSD, BSL is no joke to me!


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I'm just sitting here being amused that someone who apparently likes GSDs and bite sports is supporting BSL.


Yea I sort of feel like a cat toy right now.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Fade said:


> I stated before Quatro is just doing this to get a rise out of people. He is ignoring important facts and doing and saying all the right things to get people upset...he is wording all his posts in just the right way to keep the debate going and and just to throw some more gas on the fire. he has not made one rational post in this topic everything he wrote in this topic is to get people upset. its all written to cause more irritation. he is not ignorant or irrational. he is just playing this game.
> 
> This is Quatros earlier stand on this topic from another post:
> 
> ...


Exactly. When someone is supplied with intelligent, well informed arguments and plenty of legitimate sources to back up their claims, and they essentially respond with "LOL YER STUPID!!111" it's pretty clear they know they're wrong and at that point just want to piss people off. Don't give this guy anymore attention than he deserves.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Wat is this I don't even...

There is some serious nope here.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

RCloud said:


> Exactly. When someone is supplied with intelligent, well informed arguments and plenty of legitimate sources to back up their claims, and they essentially respond with "LOL YER STUPID!!111" it's pretty clear they know they're wrong and at that point just want to piss people off. Don't give this guy anymore attention than he deserves.


Aw, but it's fun! Most of my TV shows aren't back yet and this was my entertainment on a boring weekday evening!  And I mean, any person doing something like that is trying to accomplish two things: 1) Upset us and 2) Make us look stupid. But we're so used to that around here that these people always fail on both counts. They just end up making us laugh and making _themselves_ look stupid (or at least ignorant). 

I agree that there's no meaningful debate going on and no real point to this thread any more, of course. When I keep engaging people like this, I'm usually doing it for a couple of reasons -- first, for my own entertainment, and second (and more importantly), because I know that DF has a lot more lurkers than it has regular posters*, and I hope that lurkers researching BSL will find this thread, read all of the linked webpages and studies, and learn a little something. It helps when the opposing side's argument is so terrible that it makes us look even better, too. 

(*Right now, for example: There are currently 6141 users online. 115 members and 6026 guests.)


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Wow, y'all are still at it! Look at the locations where BSL is implemented and it is increasing, you have already lost the battle. The so called intelligent and well informed arguments are not so legitimate after all when no one that matters believe them. Good food for increasing forum post count though


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> Aw, but it's fun! Most of my TV shows aren't back yet and this was my entertainment on a boring weekday evening!  And I mean, any person doing something like that is trying to accomplish two things: 1) Upset us and 2) Make us look stupid. But we're so used to that around here that these people always fail on both counts. They just end up making us laugh and making _themselves_ look stupid (or at least ignorant).
> 
> I agree that there's no meaningful debate going on and no real point to this thread any more, of course. When I keep engaging people like this, I'm usually doing it for a couple of reasons -- first, for my own entertainment, and second (and more importantly), because I know that DF has a lot more lurkers than it has regular posters*, and I hope that lurkers researching BSL will find this thread, read all of the linked webpages and studies, and learn a little something. It helps when the opposing side's argument is so terrible that it makes us look even better, too.
> 
> (*Right now, for example: There are currently 6141 users online. 115 members and 6026 guests.)


It's been an entertaining read, no complaints there!  I'm just saying, don't put to much effort into trying to prove a point, because it's going to go right in one ear and out the other with this dude!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Crantastic said:


> (*Right now, for example: There are currently 6141 users online. 115 members and 6026 guests.)


That is terrifying.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> That is terrifying.


I know, right? I've had people register just to PM me and tell me that they learned about AKK from my posts, or to ask questions about something I posted months ago. It's easy to forget that DF isn't just being read by the 100 or so regulars I recognize.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Crantastic said:


> Aw, but it's fun! Most of my TV shows aren't back yet and this was my entertainment on a boring weekday evening!


Yea, don't think I wasn't being entertained.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Reminder folks, troll calling is still troll calling, even if you don't actually use the 'T' word. If you suspect a troll, report it, but accusations of trolling won't be tolerated in the forums.

Carry on.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I'm just sitting here being amused that someone who apparently likes GSDs and bite sports is supporting BSL.


My thoughts exactly. lol


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

quatro said:


> Wow, y'all are still at it! Look at the locations where BSL is implemented and it is increasing, you have already lost the battle. The so called intelligent and well informed arguments are not so legitimate after all when no one that matters believe them. Good food for increasing forum post count though


It's all well and good until those politicians come knocking on your door for *your* breed(s) then I am certain you would be on here crying about how BSL is unfair. The reason most of us are against BSL is because we aren't stupid ... We know that one day OUR breeds might be next.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

quatro said:


> The so called intelligent and well informed arguments are not so legitimate after all when no one that matters believe them. Good food for increasing forum post count though


So true.

Well, congratulations on being a voice to euth your own dogs and ban your sport. Well done?



Greater Swiss said:


> And please, don't call me sweetie if you reply. I find it quite insulting and patronizing.


 That's almost certainly the point, pookie! 

Can you imagine what the world would look like if scientists and statisticians used the media as raw data instead of direct study? 

"American Society of Human Geneticists confirms Obama is in fact Kenyan." Trump, Donald. _Fox News_. New York: New York, 2011.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

quatro said:


> Wow, y'all are still at it! Look at the locations where BSL is implemented and it is increasing, you have already lost the battle. The so called intelligent and well informed arguments are not so legitimate after all when no one that matters believe them. Good food for increasing forum post count though


 Actually you are wrong.. Again..... BSL gets overturned more than passed any more. 

BSL was a failed experiment based on sensationalism of the press rather than factual data.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Actually you are wrong.. Again..... BSL gets overturned more than passed any more.
> 
> BSL was a failed experiment based on sensationalism of the press rather than factual data.


Yes! A lot of areas that had BSL actually lifted the ban, because they realized it was stupid and based on no logic.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I hope there aren't more people like Quattro who push BSL


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Actually you are wrong.. Again..... BSL gets overturned more than passed any more.
> 
> BSL was a failed experiment based on sensationalism of the press rather than factual data.


Talk about head in sand! If it were true (BSL getting overturned) there would be no BSL. I am not for or against it, just seeing both sides and calling it as it is. Y'alls side is pretty much on the slippery slope as most so called data is a smoke screen, if it was not there would be no BSL zeroing in on PB's.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I hope there aren't more people like Quattro who push BSL


Sunny boy, they don't need me to push BSL. All they need is irrational arguments to make fun of and put legislation in place as the opposition is clueless.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Talk about head in sand! If it were true (BSL getting overturned) there would be no BSL.


BSL has been overturned in a number of places, not everywhere. Perhaps 15 or 20 years from now, there will be no BSL. Who knows? We're in the middle of things now, with people realizing it doesn't work. Change is never immediate.

(For the record, I really think that quatro here is anti-BSL and is just trying to make the worst pro-BSL argument possible so that people who support BSL look ignorant. I approve. A+ job, quatro!)

(Also, I'm not sure why you keep using the term "smokescreen." It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.)


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Perhaps 15 or 20 years from now, there will be no BSL.


Perhaps I will win the lottery


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

There's a much better chance of BSL being overturned than you winning the lottery lol... This is beyond silly now.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

quatro said:


> Talk about head in sand! If it were true (BSL getting overturned) there would be no BSL. I am not for or against it, just seeing both sides and calling it as it is. Y'alls side is pretty much on the slippery slope as most so called data is a smoke screen, if it was not there would be no BSL zeroing in on PB's.


It is being turned over... And states...Florida among them have passed statutes that there can be NO BSL in the given state. 

Even the UK is working on overturning their dangerous dogs act. 


Failed experiment.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I can't believe you are so pro-BSL when you have a German Shepherd, one of the most discriminated-against breeds.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

quatro said:


> Sunny boy, they don't need me to push BSL. All they need is irrational arguments to make fun of and put legislation in place as the opposition is clueless.


"Sonny?" You know that I am a girl ... right? 

Like I said ... I suppose its ok to have this warped view on the subject ... just don't come crying and complaining and whining when its your breed on the chopping block next.

that's why most of us are against BSL because we know it COULD effect us next, also because most of the time it hurts those dogs and families who have done nothing wrong, they just happen to oan the "wrong" breed.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

quatro said:


> Talk about head in sand! If it were true (BSL getting overturned) there would be no BSL. I am not for or against it, just seeing both sides and calling it as it is. Y'alls side is pretty much on the slippery slope as most so called data is a smoke screen, if it was not there would be no BSL zeroing in on PB's.


You don't watch the news much, do you?


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> "Sonny?" You know that I am a girl ... right?
> 
> Like I said ... I suppose its ok to have this warped view on the subject ... just don't come crying and complaining and whining when its your breed on the chopping block next.
> 
> that's why most of us are against BSL because we know it COULD effect us next, also because most of the time it hurts those dogs and families who have done nothing wrong, they just happen to oan the "wrong" breed.


Or they own a dog that looks like the wrong breed.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Like I said ... I suppose its ok to have this warped view on the subject ... just don't come crying and complaining and whining when its your breed on the chopping block next.


LOL according to y'all there is no chance of that because it was a failed experiment and is being lifted everywhere. Talk about head in sand!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> LOL according to y'all there is no chance of that because it was a failed experiment and is being lifted everywhere. Talk about head in sand!


Where did we say that it's being lifted everywhere? Quote the replies. Misrepresenting what people are saying is a terrible debate technique.  Although this isn't much of a debate, and I almost feel bad for continuing to tease you. Almost.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

This is boring. Can we talk about boozy cupcakes again?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

better yet, why not someone make some and pass them around ... we can drink the left over booze with the cupcakes and really get hammered


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

sassafras said:


> This is boring. Can we talk about boozy cupcakes again?


Oh man, we have a bottle of Baileys here and now I want to make those chocolate coffee cupcakes with Baileys frosting again (number 24 here). Best.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Oh man, we have a bottle of Baileys here and now I want to make those chocolate coffee cupcakes with Baileys frosting again (number 24 here). Best.


Please make enough to share ... that goes for the booze too xD


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

A cupcake bakery opened up across the street from my favorite brewpub, but I don't know if they have boozy cupcakes. I'll probably have to do some research this weekend.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Mmm Bailey's... Creamy beige...

Anyway, so how does Quatro feel about dogs that aren't even Pits getting snagged in something stupid like BSL? For example, here in Ontario, we have a BSL that bans Pits and any dog that resembles one. About 2 hours North of me, someone was required to comply to the law because their dog 'looked' like a Pit Bull. It was a Boston Terrier. Or how about the elderly person whose Labrador/Boxer mix was taken from their yard because an animal control officer just happened to be walking by, thought it was a pit bull, and took it. (I'm not even sure that person got their dog back)?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Little Wise Owl said:


> Mmm Bailey's... Creamy beige...
> 
> Anyway, so how does Quatro feel about dogs that aren't even Pits getting snagged in something stupid like BSL? For example, here in Ontario, we have a BSL that bans Pits and any dog that resembles one. About 2 hours North of me, someone was required to comply to the law because their dog 'looked' like a Pit Bull. It was a Boston Terrier. Or how about the elderly person whose Labrador/Boxer mix was taken from their yard because an animal control officer just happened to be walking by, thought it was a pit bull, and took it. (I'm not even sure that person got their dog back)?


 :O our authorities could never make such a mistake!!If they say it's a Pit Bull they are right because they are in charge and they no what is best. Period. End of discussion...


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Little Wise Owl said:


> Mmm Bailey's... Creamy beige...
> 
> Anyway, so how does Quatro feel about dogs that aren't even Pits getting snagged in something stupid like BSL? For example, here in Ontario, we have a BSL that bans Pits and any dog that resembles one. About 2 hours North of me, someone was required to comply to the law because their dog 'looked' like a Pit Bull. It was a Boston Terrier. Or how about the elderly person whose Labrador/Boxer mix was taken from their yard because an animal control officer just happened to be walking by, thought it was a pit bull, and took it. (I'm not even sure that person got their dog back)?


I feel sorry for you, despite having all the facts, yet you let it happen.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

let what happen??


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Yeah, Little Wise Owl, you should have hunted that animal control officer down and exacted some vengeance! Vigilante justice, amirite? Right?


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Yes. I let BSL happen. It's all my fault. Let me just go get my DeLorean and fix that. brb


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

I can't see the logic, y'all sound like victims yet you know the facts! Something does not add up, oh yeah, I know, you know that too!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Finally, someone in this thread is talking sense! Thanks for enlightening all of us, quatro, you genius. What would we do without you?


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Finally, someone in this thread is talking sense! Thanks for enlightening all of us, quatro, you genius. What would we do without you?


You start making sense at bedtime, g'night


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Where do you live that you're going to bed this early? Or are you actually a 90-year-old man? Senility would certainly explain some of your replies.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

quatro said:


> I can't see the logic, y'all sound like victims yet you know the facts! Something does not add up, oh yeah, I know, you know that too!


What logic? What are you even talking about? And how exactly was my underaged self, at the time, supposed to stop BSL? Half the people here don't even know what a Pit Bull looks like. So many dogs have lost their lives and homes because of this ridiculous law and nothing's changed.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Well I don't know about you guys, but I'm convinced. Of... something.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Well I don't know about you guys, but I'm convinced. Of... something.


Me too. Thoroughly convinced.

...That I would really love some boozy cupcakes right about now. And a DeLorean.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Where do you live that you're going to bed this early? Or are you actually a 90-year-old man? Senility would certainly explain some of your replies.


I have to be up at 4:30AM to prepare for training (tracking, OB and protection), it is the w-end you know.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Guise srsly... don't drink and time travel. 'sdangerous


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Little Wise Owl said:


> What logic? What are you even talking about? And how exactly was my underaged self, at the time, supposed to stop BSL? Half the people here don't even know what a Pit Bull looks like. So many dogs have lost their lives and homes because of this ridiculous law and nothing's changed.


Maybe when you grow up things will begin to make sense.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

quatro said:


> Maybe when you grow up things will begin to make sense.


Maybe when you grow up you'll be able to respond to others in a mature fashion. Weren't you going to bed?


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

No, Cran is supposed to go first.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

You'll be up for another seven hours then, give or take. I hope your training isn't something that requires sleep beforehand!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Yep.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

No, it just requires a plan. I know I am talking a foreign language here.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

That would explain a lot.

This thread is weird.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

We have reached the gif portion of the thread, folks! Where's that Prince gif?


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Lol you missed your bedtime! Sense out the window now.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

This thread is as ridiculous as breed discrimination.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Sez the under age kid.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Come on, you can do better than that. You've gotta have more endearments up your sleeve!


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

I was underage (15) when the BSL was enacted. I'm 24 now, thank you. When do I become an adult? Please enlighten me.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

I thought Sweety is an endearment, dear?



Little Wise Owl said:


> I was underage (15) when the BSL was enacted. I'm 24 now, thank you. When do I become an adult? Please enlighten me.


Some are late bloomers?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I love that you're going to be tired all day tomorrow at training because you had to stay up and argue on the Internet.  That definitely shows us all who the mature one is, here!


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

quatro said:


> Some are late bloomers?


I can't even... What? So are late bloomers what? 24? Adults? Late bloomers are adults? Go to bed. You're talking nonsense, boy.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

I am so glad you are happy.



Little Wise Owl said:


> I can't even... What? So are late bloomers what? 24? Adults? Late bloomers are adults? Go to bed. You're talking nonsense, boy.


Yessir Mr helpless victim


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OK, this is probably a waste of time, but I want to see if I can get a straight answer. It's like reading a cryptograph at this point .

quatro, what side are you on anyway? And what exactly are you proposing people do about BSL?


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Don't bother, Willowy. It's past his bed time. You won't get a straight answer.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Willowy said:


> OK, this is probably a waste of time, but I want to see if I can get a straight answer. It's like reading a cryptograph at this point .
> 
> quatro, what side are you on anyway? And what exactly are you proposing people do about BSL?


Good question Willowy! I see both sides as pathetic. Live in an area where handlers are responsible for their acts and the gov does not feel the need to step in and make decisions for us.


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

quatro said:


> I can't see the logic, y'all sound like victims yet you know the facts! Something does not add up, oh yeah, I know, you know that too!


They do have the facts, the ones that prove you wrong... The ones saying the breed you own is up there with the pits, you can't say you don't know about GSD prejudice. And you still haven't linked to anything that has the facts you are raving about lol.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Aww Sarah, there is no comparison between the type of GSD's I own and Pitts, my dogs would put the Pitts to shame in a heartbeat


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

quatro said:


> Live in an area where handlers are responsible for their acts and the gov does not feel the need to step in and make decisions for us.












Where do you live that everyone is just an absolutely amazing dog owner and nothing ever bad happens ever?


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Little Wise Owl said:


> Where do you live that everyone is just an absolutely amazing dog owner and nothing ever bad happens ever?


It ain't Canada sunny


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

quatro said:


> Aww Sarah, there is no comparison between the type of GSD's I own and Pitts, my dogs would put the Pitts to shame in a heartbeat


Cause you've met every pit ever, right?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

quatro said:


> Good question Willowy! I see both sides as pathetic. Live in an area where handlers are responsible for their acts and the gov does not feel the need to step in and make decisions for us.


So being for BSL is pathetic AND being against BSL is pathetic. I. . .hmm. I'm not sure what other opinion I'm supposed to have on the subject. 

And being that the majority of governments make manymany decisions for their citizens, you might discuss where this magic place is. And how interesting it is to drive in a place with no traffic laws .


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Like I said, you have all the answers.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Willowy said:


> So being for BSL is pathetic AND being against BSL is pathetic. I. . .hmm. I'm not sure what other opinion I'm supposed to have on the subject.
> 
> And being that the majority of governments make manymany decisions for their citizens, you might discuss where this magic place is. And how interesting it is to drive in a place with no traffic laws .


Come to Texas Willowy, no one will take your Pitt from you...but may shoot it or you if either of you misbehave! We like it it this way.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Where? Where are these magic answers?


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Little Wise Owl said:


> Where? Where are these magic answers?


LOL, I would change your middle name to 1/Wise


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

And quatro, remember that if BSL is passed against GSDs, it won't matter how good your GSDs are, they will be illegal and taken from you to be put down.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

quatro said:


> Come to Texas Willowy, no one will take your Pitt from you...but may shoot it or you if either of you misbehave! We like it it this way.


Oh! Well, it's like that here too. I can't say people are responsible (trigger-happy over-compensating twits is more like it), but you're pretty much on your own. And people enjoy shooting dogs here too! Yay!


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Sarah~ said:


> And quatro, remember that if BSL is passed against GSDs, it won't matter how good your GSDs are, they will be illegal and taken from you to be put down.


We do not believe in fear mongering Sarah so try to scare someone else.


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

quatro said:


> We do not believe in fear mongering Sarah so try to scare someone else.


Not trying to scare anyone, just telling facts. That is what BSL is...


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

quatro said:


> LOL, I would change your middle name to 1/Wise


How mature and informative.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Sarah~ said:


> Not trying to scare anyone, just telling facts. That is what BSL is...


Ok, if it makes you happy.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, some people would rather go all Ruby Ridge than do anything the government says. Could be an option. Everybody ends up dead anyway, but on your own terms? I guess.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Well I have to cut up a bird in very small pieces for tomorrow, so I will excuse myself from this riveting discussion till tomorrow night in case there are still questions/comments. Night y'all and don't let the pitts bite


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

quatro said:


> Ok, if it makes you happy.


No, BSL really pisses me off to be honest, just trying to make a point. I have a pit AND a GSD, for you to act like it has nothing to do with you is just ignorant. You don't like pits fine, but it does make me sad to see another GSD owner talk this way about BSL and purposely ignoring the fact we will be next. Ask anyone to name off dangerous dogs what will they say? Pits, Rotts, GSDs. It's like self sabotage. :/


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

quatro said:


> Come to Texas Willowy, no one will take your Pitt from you...but may shoot it or you if either of you misbehave! We like it it this way.


 Oh, yeah, I'm also going to point out that this system works all very well as long as you're on the favored side. Once the others decide you're the one who's too "different", it's not nearly as much fun. Once it's your dogs being picked off every time you let them out to pee, it kinda gets real old real fast.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I live to serve.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Yessssss. I love that gif.

Logic left this thread many pages ago, you guys. You're wasting your time letting him bait you into getting angry. Embrace the gif party!

I know it's a dog forum, but I love this cat:


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

quatro said:


> Aww Sarah, there is no comparison between the type of GSD's I own and Pitts, my dogs would put the Pitts to shame in a heartbeat


In what way, exactly? 

This thread is just one massive fail. Good lord.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Tainted said:


> In what way, exactly?


Any possible way lol. You name the game.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

if that's true then shouldn't GSDs be the ones under BSL, Quatro? if you say they'd "put pits to shame"...


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Kayota said:


> if that's true then shouldn't GSDs be the ones under BSL, Quatro? if you say they'd "put pits to shame"...


That's not up to me, y'all have all the facts.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Aww Sarah, there is no comparison between the type of GSD's I own and Pitts, my dogs would put the Pitts to shame in a heartbeat


 Lol it's PIT BULL one T..


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Does not matter, it is just a reference to a collection of breeds.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Any possible way lol. You name the game.


Hog hunting.. Lets see some GSDs take down a hog..


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Does not matter, it is just a reference to a collection of breeds.


Um it may not matter to you, but you still spelled it wrong.. And i am not going to get into the "collection of breeds" statement.. There is ONE breed with the words PIT BULL in it and that is the AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Cmon over, I have the land and the game.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Cmon over, I have the land and the game.


Why don't you just take a video


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

My commentary on this entire thing.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Bring your pitt and we will hunt together. Unless you are afraid he/she will get mauled.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

CptJack you forgot this one:


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

My pitt? 

I call dibs on Brad!



Little Wise Owl said:


> CptJack you forgot this one:


Also a good one!


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Bring your pitt and we will hunt together. Unless you are afraid he/she will get mauled.


I don't have a Pitt there is no "pitt" breed or group of breeds, there ARE Pit Bulls though.. Also i own a MUTT not a Pit Bull, i am getting a APBT in November though, i also i don't hunt, but there are PLENTY of Hog hunting pit bulls (but i don't know of ANY hog hunting GSDs hmmmm ) who do not get "mauled" doing it.. So again, why don't you take a video of your GSD's on a hog please


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

I figured, lol.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> I figured, lol.


You figured what? That i don't own an APBT or that i don't hunt? You can take a video of your GSD's hog hunting, you don't need me there to prove they could do it


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

I figured that you or your dogs were not up to it. When you get the pitt in Nov, train him for 2 years then bring him over.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)




----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)




----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> I figured that you or your dogs were not up to it. When you get the pitt in Nov, train him for 2 years then bring him over.


 Again i DO NOT HUNT  and that is not something that will ever change i would not be able to do it especially since pigs are one of my favorite animals..

I am not getting a Pitt in November i am getting an APBT ;D thanks!

How about you just take a video of your dogs and prove your point, again you don't need me to bring my dog there to prove GSDs can hog hunt, all you need is a camera


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Are you sure the BSL won't take him from you?


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Don't forget to post a video of your germon sheppard hog hunting with Adjecyca1's pittt when it happens.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

You can count on that.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Are you sure the BSL won't take him from you?


Well where i currently live BSL is illegal, if they chose to in act BSL i would move..


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Come to Texas.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Come to Texas.


Naaahhh i am good on Texas..Decent place to visit, not somewhere i would want to live at all


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Heaven on earth!


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

quatro said:


> Any possible way lol. You name the game.


Now, I could've seen you saying something like protection training, and possibly buying it. But, that.. that is downright _laughable_. I don't even think you believe in what your saying - hence the "lol", right? 

I won't humor you in debating which breed is better at what. No use in it. I have to say, though, I find it pretty impressive that you use them as catch dogs! Post up some video footage!


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

So when are you taking that video of your GSD's on some hogs? Just to prove the breed can excel at it and do it better than Pit Bulls


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Has this really come to a "My dog is better than your dog" discussion? lol


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

As soon as you join me and take the videographer role as well as handle your dog. Lodging is free. Game is Russian boar and Texas Whitetail, hunting is spot and stalk, equipment is 7mm or 30 cal rifle for your own safety.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Little Wise Owl said:


> Has this really come to a "My dog is better than your dog" discussion? lol


Looks like Adjecyca1 bit more than he/she can chew.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Little Wise Owl said:


> Has this really come to a "My dog is better than your dog" discussion? lol


You're surprised? I'm sure not! My 5 year old nephew is more mature than this dude.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> As soon as you join me and take the videographer role as well as handle your dog. Lodging is free. Game is Russian boar and Texas Whitetail, hunting is spot and stalk, equipment is 7mm or 30 cal rifle for your own safety.


Why do i have to go? PLENTY of Pit bulls prove themselves to be good catch dogs, the same can't be said for the GSD


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Little Wise Owl said:


> Has this really come to a "My dog is better than your dog" discussion? lol


I am not claiming one breed is better than another i actually like GSD's a lot and have had the pleasure of working with some REALLY nice ones, but i do not believe they excel at hog hunting the way APBTs can, i have had numerous other GSD owners agree with me on this as well..


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Well the discussion from my point of view is about our individual dogs, hence I am asking him/her to show me what that dog can or cannot do. Looks like a total copout here.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Because s/he isn't willing to up and travel to Texas JUST to prove someone on the internet wrong? Really? REALLY?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Well the discussion from my point of view is about our individual dogs, hence I am asking him/her to show me what that dog can or cannot do. Looks like a total copout here.


I am not talking about my individual dog, YOU SAID your GSDs are better than Pit Bulls at everything, which is the comment i responded to asking whether or not you thought GSDs were better at hog hunting, at no point in this discussion did i mention my mutts being better than anyone else's dogs.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Well if not then he/she should be careful on the keyboard in case someone calls him/her out!


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

What about characteristics about Pit bulls as a whole makes them a lesser breed of dog in your eyes?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

quatro said:


> Bring your pitt and we will hunt together. Unless you are afraid he/she will get mauled.


Pigs don't maul.....


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

I'm surprised the mods haven't shut this down. It's just ridiculous bickering at this point.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Well if not then he/she should be careful on the keyboard in case someone calls him/her out!


 Calling me out on WHAT? i never said MY dogs were better than yours at hog hunting. I asked if your GSDs were better than PIT BULLS at hog hunting


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Calling me out on WHAT? i never said MY dogs were better than yours at hog hunting. I asked if your GSDs were better than PIT BULLS at hog hunting


Well you can't hunt, your dogs are not capable of hunting so ...


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> Well you can't hunt, your dogs are not capable of hunting so ...


Yes, this is true but has absolutely NOTHING to do with the question i asked you or the fact that GSD's do not excel at hog hunting the APBTs do..


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

quatro said:


> Well you can't hunt, your dogs are not capable of hunting so ...


And you know this how?


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

APBT's die a lot while trying to hunt. The handlers just shoot/toss them in a ditch and bring a new one out to try because they are disposable. How do you like that? I bet the dogs in that situation would prefer BSL as compared to their fate, get mauled by the boar then shot by their master.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

...I take my dogs for a nice walk and I come back to this? What even...


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

RCloud said:


> And you know this how?


I'm psychic!


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

quatro said:


> I'm psychic!


And by "psychic" you mean delusional, I'm sure.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> APBT's die a lot while trying to hunt. The handlers just shoot/toss them in a ditch and bring a new one out to try because they are disposable. How do you like that? I bet the dogs in that situation would prefer BSL as compared to their fate, get mauled by the boar then shot by their master.


Source, please.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> Source, please.


Oh boy, I can't wait to hear why he doesn't need a source. We're just supposed to take his word for it.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Have you seen a pitt mauled by a boar? not a pretty sight with the guts hanging out and the dog yelping and kicking out thrashing on the ground.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Source, please.


Go hunting and see for yourself. Any hunter who uses catch dogs knows. It's part of the game.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

quatro said:


> APBT's die a lot while trying to hunt. The handlers just shoot/toss them in a ditch and bring a new one out to try because they are disposable. How do you like that? I bet the dogs in that situation would prefer BSL as compared to their fate, get mauled by the boar then shot by their master.


Wow that is such a bold and ridiculous statement LMAO, i happen to know a few hog hunters, and quite a few old retired APBTs.. Message Southern Inferno Kennels and tell him that, i am sure he would get a good laugh from it!!


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

He would be lying if told you otherwise.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Yes it can and does happen, but to act like it happens all the time and to act like all hog hunters go through dogs like potato chips is completely and utterly ridiculous!


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

So what is an acceptable dog mauling percentage? for the purpose of sport?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Go hunting and see for yourself. Any hunter who uses catch dogs knows. It's part of the game.


No source, then? As expected.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

this dog survived 11 years hog hunting :O


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> No source, then? As expected.


Head in sand, as expected  It's away past your bedtime.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

This dog survived 8 !


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

quatro said:


> Bring your pitt and we will hunt together. Unless you are afraid he/she will get mauled.


Does your GSD catch or bay?


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> this dog survived 11 years hog hunting :O


He did while others died. No if's and butt's about that.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

quatro said:


> So what is an acceptable dog mauling percentage? for the purpose of sport?


What ever it is, I'm sure it's much higher for GSDs. Is that why you're so angry?


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

quatro said:


> Head in sand, as expected  It's away past your bedtime.


If you can't manage to debate without making insulting and condescending remarks like this one, Quatro, you'll find your posting privileges removed. Be respectful, or there will be consequences.


----------



## quatro (Aug 14, 2013)

Sure, go ahead ban me. I bet ignorance will keep members happily occupied.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

quatro said:


> Head in sand, as expected  It's away past your bedtime.


Why are you so concerned with when I sleep? Are you desperate to get the last word and think you can only do that if I go to bed before you do? (If so, you've got about three more hours.) Or, in the same vein as calling me "sweetie," are you trying to talk down to me? Either way, it's getting pathetic. I'm honestly confused at this point as to why you seem so intent on destroying whatever reputation you had here at DF.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

quatro said:


> Sure, go ahead ban me. I bet ignorance will keep members happily occupied.


Your wish is my command. Hopefully by the time you've completed your rather lengthy timeout, you'll have learned to treat your fellow forum members with a little more respect.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I wish Johnny bandit would come back and set this guy straight ... He knows a lot of big hunters, has hunted himself and would probably get a kick out of those ridiculous statements.

Yes while it is a fact that some dogs are injured during a hunt, it is not as common as you make it out to be, if it was they wouldn't use gear like this: http://m.caller.com/photos/gallerie...g-hunters-association-live-hog-roundup/80782/ (FYI the dogs on this page are American bulldogs NOT pit bulls)


A good many breeders make their own dogs, here is an example here : http://www.boardogs.com/Working_Dogs1.htm

More examples of working hog dogs. 
http://www.txdogos.com -Dogos 
http://www.huntingdogos.com/main.asp - more Dogos 

Not everyone used pit bulls you know ... Though you are so bent on remaining ignorant that I don't know why I even went to the trouble of finding these links


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> this dog survived 11 years hog hunting :O


Those pics you posted are beautiful dogs ... Adjecyca! Like the old saying says "a smart dog lives to reproduce." So in theory ... Since the dogs who don't learn from their mistakes don't live then that's all the hunters would be left with ... The smart dogs.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

quatro said:


> Sure, go ahead ban me. I bet ignorance will keep members happily occupied.


Goodnight, sweet prince.

This thread....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

quatro said:


> Have you seen a pitt mauled by a boar? not a pretty sight with the guts hanging out and the dog yelping and kicking out thrashing on the ground.


I have hunted with hunters all over the US, Last year we had some ole boys from Australia come in to hunt with us. 

And I have to say I have never heard a hog hunter use the term mauled, in reference to their dog getting hog cut. Its cut... Sometimes its a bad cut and sometimes not so much. 

Even the Australians refer to it as cut.... In a very eloquent way... Ay.... That Knobber cut your Bobby amongst the withers.... I was like what the hell.... It means that young barrow (castrated boar) cut your male dog on the shoulder. Fun times..

Mostly catch dogs get cut around the shoulder, neck, face, on the side. Bay dogs can get cut anywhere. Not uncommon to be cut on the hind quarters as they are dodging out of the way. 


But I digress.... Dogs do get cut... Sometimes very badly.... And sometimes they get opened up.... It happens... But is not all that common....

Three kinds of dogs typically get opened up.
1) Young dogs that make a mistake. 
2) Dogs that have no business out there in the first place. 
3) BIG OVER SIZED dogs. 

It is easy to keep your young dogs fairly safe. Keep you catch puppy on the leash until you see what you have bayed up. Harder to do at night. And you cover the puppy with a GOOD seasoned dog. You want your puppies catching shoats, smallish sows, etc. You want him to make his mistakes on hogs that while they might beat him up a little, cannot really hurt him. 

Dogs are don't have the drive, tenacity, etc to catch, Simply won't engage.. They stay pretty Safe because they are not going to catch. This dog will get your bay dogs in trouble though. The longer things go on, the more chance things can go WRONG... And the bay dogs are working themselves and the hogs into a frenzy. They get frustrated if the catch dog does not catch. So some bay dogs will then go in and try to catch. You get mayhem and someone is getting cut if anyone you have bayed has tusks and whetters. 

The MOST common dog to take a bad cut is a the over sized catch dog. Those ginormous 75 Pits, Am Bulls, Dogos, etc. All too big (which is reason number one why a GSD would make a TERRIBLE choice as a catch dog) They cannot get out of the way. Catching hogs is not about power or strength... It is about quickness, stamina and fearlessness. 

There were not nearly as many big catch dogs back in the days before cut vests. Because a big dog did not last long. 

I never had a catch dog in my dog box that weighed more than 45 pounds. 

That being said, it is a rough game... I have seen some things that I will spare some detail though. 

In 42 of being immersed in the culture, contract hunting, hog claims, removing hogs for property owners, government agencies. I have caught hogs with the space shuttle in the background sitting on the launch pad. 

I would say in that time, I have witnessed 9 death and near death experiences on dogs. One of which was mine. I lost a bay dog in a sod farm near Immokolee in 1993. Which was the beginning of the end for me owning hog dogs. One it is a lot of work, and my negotiating with land owners, agencies, etc. I run a crew. The guys in the crew own the dogs, I use my contacts and experience to open access to us. I still get to hunt with much less personal connection to the dogs. 

And I have held my fingers in a dog's neck, had my hand inside holding in organs and such, wrapped my shirt around exposed lung. 

But this is not what you see...


quatro said:


> Have you seen a pitt mauled by a boar? not a pretty sight with the guts hanging out and the dog yelping and kicking out thrashing on the ground.


Dogs I have seen have all been pretty dang calm and quiet. There is this thing called shock... Shuts the body down in times of serious injury. Given enough time the shock wears off, It can be rough later on... Hauling the dog out of the woods, etc trying to get the dog to the vet, etc. But... 

Never seen a dog thrashing about right after.... Nope.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Dang he got banned too soon.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Dang he got banned too soon.....



I was about to invite him to Florida. I was considering offering to pay his air fare for him and his hog catching GSD.....

Let him hunt with us.... We are supposed to take at least 250 hogs off of two tracts of land.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Dang he got banned too soon.....


Too soon eh....somehow I doubt your post would have made any difference, let alone "set him straight" as others had hoped. 

Thanks for your post about the catch dogs....VERY fascinating. I'd always wondered how hunting with dogs like that worked. 

I do have a question though, about when the dogs are working like that. What kind of drives are going on? I'm assuming they enjoy it to some degree....I've mentioned before with the dogs at Schutzhund, they are (for the most part), engaging in a "game" and their various play, prey and defensive drives are in the mix. With the dogs hunting like that, is there the sense that they are "playing" or is it serious work, is it properly targeted true aggression? Not sure how to clearly explain what I'm getting at, I hope you understand because I really am curious. 

Also, dogs who work in this sense....how are they when they aren't working? Would you call them "safe" (ie: go home and not hurt the kids) or are they only safe if treated purely as "working dogs" put away when they aren't working/training/exercising. I've only encountered working sport dogs, not dogs to "really" work (no offense meant to those whose dog's work is a sport).


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

> Catching hogs is not about power or strength... It is about quickness, stamina and fearlessness.


EXACTLY, as it is with so many other things. It really annoys me how people seem to think bigger and stronger equals a better fighter.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Oh, Johnny. You with your smokescreens and head in the sand as usual.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

HE might not be able to reply but he can still read posts so maybe he read it ... Though I agree it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Oh, Johnny. You with your smokescreens and head in the sand as usual.


 I wanted Quantro to come to Florida and experience my smokescreens. Actually I did not want to see the guys dog hurt...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Greater Swiss said:


> I'm assuming they enjoy it to some degree.....


There is no some degree to it.... They have to be 110 percent committed and LOVE it. A hog dogs need to rather hunt than breath.



Greater Swiss said:


> I do have a question though, about when the dogs are working like that. What kind of drives are going on? .


Well you have prey drive manifested in various ways. The bay dogs are manifesting as hunters. And the catch dogs as a killing instinct. You have a desire to work, working drive, and maybe not drive, but the dogs have to be stoic, fearless, cannot quit. 

And yes I think they think it is a game. Make no mistake, the catch dogs and some of the bay dogs fully intend on killing the pig. And it does happen. Dog gets the veins and arteries in the neck torn loose The hog can bleed out in seconds. There is also an artery.vein, shoots blood so artery.... A dog gets that just right the pig dies. A lot of hunters go to that artery with their blade to dispatch the pig. And the windpipe can get crushed. I have also seen twice where the catch dog grabs usually a smaller hog right on the nose, The dogs lower canines catch the bottom jaw and jam the hogs mouth shut tight. The hog appears to suffocate. 



Greater Swiss said:


> Also, dogs who work in this sense....how are they when they aren't working? Would you call them "safe" (ie: go home and not hurt the kids) or are they only safe if treated purely as "working dogs" put away when they aren't working/training/exercising. .


That goes both ways.... It depends on the dog, socialization, etc. The same reasons the old time fighters did not want a human aggressive Pit, are the same reasons hog hunters cannot really afford to have a human aggressive. I am going to post some videos... I think they are tame enough... Nothing you will not see on A and E Discovery, etc. You will see what I mean. You and your hunting partners do not want to be waist deep in muck wrestling a hog with a human aggressive pit. Or even one that does not care. You hands are in there, the dogs are looking to better their bite and hold. As you flip the hog, the dog will lose leverage and re bite. I have had pits cover my hand on a re bite more than once... My dogs and other dogs.. . and have yet to have blood drawn by a catch dog. They taste your hand and let go..

I would have to say, a good portions hog dogs are kennel or chained out dogs. But not always. As an adult, mine lived at least part time in the house. As did they when I was growing up. And I have told this story before. When I was four I checked out a book at the library called there is a monster in my closet. I became afraid of the closet monster. I started crawling in bed parents. My Dad solved this by bringing the family's house dog, Runt into my room... Runt was a Old Family Red Nosed APBT. Small. 38 pounds. But DEAD game, and proven. He lived in the house but hunted hogs along with his brother. I had been on the hunts even at age four. Left to watch from buggy. Or left sitting on a tree branch while the men sorted out the caught hog. I had seen Runt Fight pigs and seen him win. My Dad simply pointed that out. He said you know Runt can beat a nasty boar hog... So he is going to start sleeping with you, to keep an eye out for that closet monster. Of course Runt agreed readily. He and I were already good Buds and our dogs were never allowed on the furniture. So when my Dad put him up on the bed and told him to down. The dog was I am sure like Woo Hoo..... That dog slept in bed with me and protected me from the closet monster every night for the next 12 years. Until he died at 16. Although I had long since out grown the need for "protection" against said Monster. When I took my first dog caught hog a couple of years later, Runt is the dog that had him caught and held for me. He became my defacto first dog. And even though he had some significant DA leanings, when I got a collie at 7, Runt never bothered Laddie and they became great buds. You could not exercise Runt with his own Littermate Chico. But he never so much as curled a lip at Laddie...Runt Caught well into his 13th year. And frankly I quit using him to catch not because he did not have it any more. But he was old and I worried, he was going to get on a pig tougher than it looked. 

So yea they can be pets and work.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

The videos... These do show live hog catches. So watch at your own risk but there is nothing on them you will not see on animal planet. 

I like first one because it shows what happens with the bay dogs as things progress and the catch is made. This is a nice little crew and they have a nice little pack of dogs. Watch the video before reading on. 





Now the bay dogs got that hog hemmed up in that drainage. Here were would call that a branch. Maybe a creek. The fact that the hog stopped there was the hogs idea.. They will always go someplace like that. Those high banks are PERFECT for the hog to put up a fight and tough for the dogs... The hog can back up to the bank. His backside is covered. But notice... How the bay dogs are working off of him. Up on the bank, worrying and pestering him but not getting close enough to the hog to lash out at them. 

See the catch dog come in from the right down the drainage? The white Pit. (These hunters were smart. Instead of letting the catch dog bail over the bank, they loosed him down the drainage so he ran the creekbed back to the hog. SMART thinking.) Any did anyone notice what the bay dogs did as soon as the catch dog have a good grip? They ABSOLUTELY mugged the hog.. .Well the walker hound was not so sure about it. But the rest piled down in the drainage... They KNOW... All bay dogs do this. They always have. You can take a pack of hounds that have run other game and put them on a hog. They will likely run it and bay it if they are decent dogs. But they will keep their distance. Bring in the catch dog and they will do the same thing. 

This crew is a SHARP Crew. Nice dogs and great equipment. Very business like. They do drown a hog at the end of the video. Not too graphic. But they did the right thing. The dogs were over their head, etc hog was in the water flailing about. That situation had dead dog written all over it. And the easiest safest thing to do. 
I LIKE this Brindle and White Pit. 






Notice how they have good handle lines to tie up the dogs while they sort it out. Keeps everyone safe


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

And it took me a while. But I DID finding a German Shepherd Hunting a wild pig...

You have to watch this.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

those videos are REALLY cool... pigs are freaking terrifying though, i've been in a pen with 8 or so huge farm hogs, those suckers came up to my waist and they were screaming and knocking people down... awful time lol also I really love how hands on this type of hunting is, no guns involved...


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Greater Swiss said:


> Also, dogs who work in this sense....how are they when they aren't working? Would you call them "safe" (ie: go home and not hurt the kids) or are they only safe if treated purely as "working dogs" put away when they aren't working/training/exercising. I've only encountered working sport dogs, not dogs to "really" work (no offense meant to those whose dog's work is a sport).


 I can't believe you really have to ask this(i am really not trying to offend you but it boggles my mind when i hear statements like this), most dogs know the difference between animal and human and TONS of dogs would kill an animal if given a chance, that doesn't mean they are going after a human next


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I can't believe you really have to ask this(i am really not trying to offend you but it boggles my mind when i hear statements like this), most dogs know the difference between animal and human and TONS of dogs would kill an animal if given a chance, that doesn't mean they are going after a human next


 No offense taken, but I just had to ask. I've heard of (and even met) a couple of working (sorry....to make the distinction...Sport Working) dogs in ScH that although not human aggressive, were considered so drivey that they were not "able" to keep them completely safe around the family...Intense food guarding, prey drive and such. I will say however, that this might be much more to do with some handlers being more interested in training for the sport, to be the trophy IPO dog, rather than to be a good, and safe pet, perhaps also to do with inadequite or misguided training. We've also been generally directed to not go near the dogs when they are ramped up to go for the sleeve "just in case", only the Handler and the Helper go near the dog. I personally respect the space as not to distract the dog, though I get it....last thing I need to do is wander into the mix and look like "prey". I did see a dog try to go for the helper wearing the sleeve and suit who was taking a break nearby, the dog was fairly easily redirected to the correct helper, but it was definitely a bit of a blooper moment. I strongly doubt a true bite incident would happen, never heard of or seen one happen, but I generally keep that space for both safety and respect. TMost of the ones I've met have been incredible dogs, great pets, who would be completely safe to walk up to and touch even while they were in full drive on the sleeve, but the cautions are there. Do you see why I asked? I expected the answer I got, but still wanted confirmation....

I must also say that I'm amazed at the bay dogs being pulled off the hogs! They don't redirect, ever, even being pulled off they just have eyes for the prey, not trying to guard it.....whether that is trained or not, I think it is awesome. And I wouldn't have been surprised to hear of the odd redirection from a dog in that high of a drive, but it is impressive to see that there seems to not be even a thought of it.

Johnny Bandit, thank you SO much for those videos and your posts! Impressive stuff! The hunters and of course the dogs are incredible. When I have thought of working dogs in the past what comes to mind is the Police and SAR type dog, the guide/helper dogs, and the sport working dogs. I don't mean to disrespect the sport dog at all, but something about dogs who work and can be trusted when it is life or death vs a dog whose mistakes just mean the lack of a medal or standing in the ranks always impresses me. Not that the dogs would really realize the difference, I think at that point it is the handler who has the major stress, but nonetheless it is very cool to me. Thanks for opening my eyes to yet another type of working dog though....I knew somewhere in my mind that dogs did this, but never completely realized it. There are so many jobs that dogs have had in the past that have basically been nullified it is for some reason surprising to me that these jobs are still there and still VERY valid jobs! Love it, thank you so much for the education!

There are so many little specific things in the videos and the posts that I have comments on, but fact is, they all boil down to one thing: WOW!!! Impressive stuff Johnny Bandit, huge kudos and respect to you, the dogs and those that handle them!


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Kayota said:


> those videos are REALLY cool... pigs are freaking terrifying though, i've been in a pen with 8 or so huge farm hogs, those suckers came up to my waist and they were screaming and knocking people down... awful time lol also I really love how hands on this type of hunting is, no guns involved...


As someone who has been charged by a 250lb boar hog while jogging one day, yes they are quite terrifying. Thank god I had Izze at the time, I was surprised how fearless she was c she intercepted that big and chased him off, though he had some blades on him and he cut her up pretty good on her side ... But thankfully the wounds were only superficial.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Some guys well use all sorts of crosses... That chocolate dog is a bird dog cur cross. And a puppy.... I like the chocolate dog .

Those hogs barking bayed in that hammock is a very sweet sound.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I am REALLY liking that chocolate puppy.... I may have to contact that guy.. Unconventional. But the dog can catch.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

That chocolate puppy is impressive! The enthusiasm is awesome! Love watching dogs work, especially when I can tell they love it! This is amazing stuff!

The GPS collars are excellent too! When I was perusing e collars I saw those ones and though expensive, I can see that they would be invaluable for that application. Seriously cool for the average person (or at least one that understands GPS use well....other than just for car navigation), but too much money to shell out for myself. 

BTW, forgot to mention, the GSD with the pig....that was hilarious, about the level of hog hunting mine do lol.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

It's amazing how easily they find a hog, geez!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Kayota said:


> It's amazing how easily they find a hog, geez!


They are not usually hard to find in places the are well established.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Boo I am mobile so I can't see the videos ... Will have to wait til I have my laptop


----------

