Thought I would throw a picture of my red nose in this thred, hes the best dog ive ever had.
Thought I would throw a picture of my red nose in this thred, hes the best dog ive ever had.
>> show me statistical proof of "hundreds of thousands of dog bites last year".
Sorry i was wrong.
It's millons of dog bites a year
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
clip - There is a dog bite epidemic in the United States. There are almost 5 million victims annually -- about 2% of the entire population. 800,000 need medical attention. 1,000 per day need treatment in hospital emergency rooms.
from the same link
clip - A clear distinction needs to be made between canine homicides (i.e., incidents in which dogs kill people) and the dog bite epidemic. The attention given to the homicides has put the spotlight on pit bulls and Rottweilers. Without a doubt, these two dogs are usually the number one and number two canine killers of humans. (See below, The dogs most likely to kill.) It therefore is correct to single out those two breeds when talking about canine homicides, because those two breeds cause half or more of the deaths.
Any more question from you geniuses
Sorry i was wrong.
It's millons of dog bites a year
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
clip - There is a dog bite epidemic in the United States. There are almost 5 million victims annually -- about 2% of the entire population. 800,000 need medical attention. 1,000 per day need treatment in hospital emergency rooms.
from the same link
clip - A clear distinction needs to be made between canine homicides (i.e., incidents in which dogs kill people) and the dog bite epidemic. The attention given to the homicides has put the spotlight on pit bulls and Rottweilers. Without a doubt, these two dogs are usually the number one and number two canine killers of humans. (See below, The dogs most likely to kill.) It therefore is correct to single out those two breeds when talking about canine homicides, because those two breeds cause half or more of the deaths.
Any more question from you geniuses
Food aggression is very common in dogs, and you're right in your thinking that using violence against a dog, especially one who's been beaten, will be counter productive. However, you must clearly establish your dominance, in all facets of his life. Fortunately, dogs communicate dominance in many subtle ways. Yes, 'scruffing' a dog is a common way to show dominance, as it imitates the natural corrective action of a bitch with her pups. However, with older dogs, and can have very surprising results, some of which are not desireable, as the dog recognize the inappropriateness of the gesture - dogs that are beyond puppyhood are not scruffed by dominant pack members. When was the last time you saw an adult human get spanked? Same idea here, discipline changes with age.BruceLeeroy said:
The most common way adult dogs show dominance is through body language. It's time for you to learn to speak dog
Try this: Next time you feed the dog, bring him into the room with the bowl (collar and leash attatched), and put him into a sit/stay, across the room from the bowl. Fill the bowl, but do not allow the dog to break the sit/stay. If he does, immediately stop filling, and take the dog out of the room. Bring him back in, and back into a sit/stay. While the dog maintains the sit/stay, stand over the bowl, shoulders erect, chest out. Stare at the dog, and walk around the bowl, and play with the food. Continue this until the dog assumes a submissive position, or tries to leave the room. This is him acknowledging that yes, you are dominant, and that is YOUR food.
If he tries to approach the food bowl, even in a submissive posture, move yourself between him and the food, always with shoulders back and chest out, staring at him. Do not let him feed until you say so. Once you allow him to feed, stay near the bowl. And when I say near, I mean right on top of it. Remember, you're the pack leader, and this is your food, he's only eating it because you let him. Periodically, move around the bowl, and use your body to force him to move away. Do not talk to him, or pet him. Simply get in his way so he can't get to the food. Then allow him to eat again.
It may seem mean to us, but your dog will love you for it. In the wild, the lesser members of the pack do not feed until the alpha has gotten his feel and allows them to eat. If they try to approach, they will get a swift response from the alpha. You are the alpha in this pack. He eats at your pleasure, period.
He will understand this, it's instinct. He will also appreciate it, because dogs want a strong pack leader. Right now, he's unsure, because you're breaking his rules. He doesn't understand. That's why he tenses - he's confused. He was eating without waiting for permission, and when you approach, he's expecting violence, so he braces for it, because that's what his instinct tells him should happen. By establishing your dominance at the food bowl, and allowing him to feed, he'll understand that all is well in the pack, and he need not fear you - you're a good, strong leader he can trust.
Remember, put away the soft voices, and soothing talk - dog's can't talk, and adults do not croon to each other. Start speaking his language, body language, and tell him that you're a good strong leader.
He'll love you for it.
Last edited:
G
Guest
The dog is a dog. It's another species. As such, it is not and can not be expected to think like a human being. The most common mistake people make in dealing with dogs is to expect them to act "reasonably" and act "logically" according to human standards. As shown by the example of the Pom that killed an infant, it doesn't matter what breed the dog is. They are all, under the right circumstances, capable of biting and even killing.
In the domestication and breeding process breeders have tried to inhibit the bite reflex of most dogs. Their success has been better in some breeds than in others, and is also influenced by the purpose of the dog. I've run bird dogs (pointers) for 30 some years. They are bred for a soft mouth to carry birds without damage so they are fit for my table. Yet three of them have bitten people over the years. Two because on 2 separate occasions friends thought they could just walk into my house. The third was an accident with my daughters face getting caught between the dog's teeth and a badly thrown dog toy. All 3 were guilty of being dogs, and doing what dogs do naturally.
If this sort of thing can happen with a dog bred for a soft mouth, you can easily see that breeds for which a hard bite is desireable are going to have little if any bite inhibition and therefore can inflict more damage. Does this mean that such breed should be banned? Of course not. They all serve their purpose, as they were developed to. Of what use is a police dog if it cannot bite down hard enough to stop a criminal? By the same token, breeding nasty tempered lap dogs would probably start the death knell for that breed.
All dogs can be taught certain standards of behavior, including appropriate use of their teeth. I teach my puppies that biting down on people is not allowed. But even with such lessons, instinct will take over and the dog will revert to being a dog when threatened or intruded upon.
Education is the key to allowing dogs of any breed to integrate with human society. People must be educated in resposible dog ownership, regardless of breed. Dogs must be educated by their owners to have proper manners in human society. If not, well, they are just dogs, and they will act accordingly unless taught otherwise.
In the domestication and breeding process breeders have tried to inhibit the bite reflex of most dogs. Their success has been better in some breeds than in others, and is also influenced by the purpose of the dog. I've run bird dogs (pointers) for 30 some years. They are bred for a soft mouth to carry birds without damage so they are fit for my table. Yet three of them have bitten people over the years. Two because on 2 separate occasions friends thought they could just walk into my house. The third was an accident with my daughters face getting caught between the dog's teeth and a badly thrown dog toy. All 3 were guilty of being dogs, and doing what dogs do naturally.
If this sort of thing can happen with a dog bred for a soft mouth, you can easily see that breeds for which a hard bite is desireable are going to have little if any bite inhibition and therefore can inflict more damage. Does this mean that such breed should be banned? Of course not. They all serve their purpose, as they were developed to. Of what use is a police dog if it cannot bite down hard enough to stop a criminal? By the same token, breeding nasty tempered lap dogs would probably start the death knell for that breed.
All dogs can be taught certain standards of behavior, including appropriate use of their teeth. I teach my puppies that biting down on people is not allowed. But even with such lessons, instinct will take over and the dog will revert to being a dog when threatened or intruded upon.
Education is the key to allowing dogs of any breed to integrate with human society. People must be educated in resposible dog ownership, regardless of breed. Dogs must be educated by their owners to have proper manners in human society. If not, well, they are just dogs, and they will act accordingly unless taught otherwise.
G
Guest
NiteTiger said:Food aggression is very common in dogs, and you're right in your thinking that using violence against a dog, especially one who's been beaten, will be counter productive. However, you must clearly establish your dominance, in all facets of his life. Fortunately, dogs communicate dominance in many subtle ways. Yes, 'scruffing' a dog is a common way to show dominance, as it imitates the natural corrective action of a bitch with her pups. However, with older dogs, and can have very surprising results, some of which are not desireable, as the dog recognize the inappropriateness of the gesture - dogs that are beyond puppyhood are not scruffed by dominant pack members. When was the last time you saw an adult human get spanked? Same idea here, discipline changes with age.
The most common way adult dogs show dominance is through body language. It's time for you to learn to speak dog
Try this: Next time you feed the dog, bring him into the room with the bowl (collar and leash attatched), and put him into a sit/stay, across the room from the bowl. Fill the bowl, but do not allow the dog to break the sit/stay. If he does, immediately stop filling, and take the dog out of the room. Bring him back in, and back into a sit/stay. While the dog maintains the sit/stay, stand over the bowl, shoulders erect, chest out. Stare at the dog, and walk around the bowl, and play with the food. Continue this until the dog assumes a submissive position, or tries to leave the room. This is him acknowledging that yes, you are dominant, and that is YOUR food.
If he tries to approach the food bowl, even in a submissive posture, move yourself between him and the food, always with shoulders back and chest out, staring at him. Do not let him feed until you say so. Once you allow him to feed, stay near the bowl. And when I say near, I mean right on top of it. Remember, you're the pack leader, and this is your food, he's only eating it because you let him. Periodically, move around the bowl, and use your body to force him to move away. Do not talk to him, or pet him. Simply get in his way so he can't get to the food. Then allow him to eat again.
It may seem mean to us, but your dog will love you for it. In the wild, the lesser members of the pack do not feed until the alpha has gotten his feel and allows them to eat. If they try to approach, they will get a swift response from the alpha. You are the alpha in this pack. He eats at your pleasure, period.
He will understand this, it's instinct. He will also appreciate it, because dogs want a strong pack leader. Right now, he's unsure, because you're breaking his rules. He doesn't understand. That's why he tenses - he's confused. He was eating without waiting for permission, and when you approach, he's expecting violence, so he braces for it, because that's what his instinct tells him should happen. By establishing your dominance at the food bowl, and allowing him to feed, he'll understand that all is well in the pack, and he need not fear you - you're a good, strong leader he can trust.
Remember, put away the soft voices, and soothing talk - dog's can't talk, and adults do not croon to each other. Start speaking his language, body language, and tell him that you're a good strong leader.
He'll love you for it.
EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT post my friend.
I would just like to stress that the eye contact is one of the most important things.
Stare his ass down.. Make a mean face and show your teeth if needed.
If a dog will stare you in the eye without redirecting his gaze a little, it means he feels like he is at your level and he will take you on if needed.
If he does as he is told, make sure MASSIVE amounts of praise is given...
Speaking dog is paying attention to eyes,tail and gesture.
Nitetiger nailed it though.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Oh, and Twilson, from your link: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
"Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner most often is responsible -- not the breed, and not the dog.
An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be likely to bite. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack."
"Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner most often is responsible -- not the breed, and not the dog.
An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be likely to bite. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack."
BruceLeeroy
Active member
read more and you will also see they specifically say...."However, an incorrect impression is given when talk shifts casually from the canine homicide issue to the dog bite epidemic. These are separate problems, not to be confused with each other."
that's kind of funny considering that's exactly what you tried to do.... they also go on to say....
"Considering the fact that there are 65 million dogs in the United States (see above), the homicide problem is minuscule. This is not to denigrate it, but to point out that eliminating it entirely would save only 15 to 20 people..."
and lets not forget, they also go on to say.... "However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. "
this is all pulled from the very website you quote as a source. you try and tie pitbulls to the yearly bites when the website SPECIFICALLY shows they are NOT responsible for it.
bites are not homicides.
perhaps i should have been more specific in my request for information. show me some proof that pitbulls are more responsible than any other breeds for these "millions" of bites each year.
you say i'm spinning statistics by saying that the fact that of 65 million dogs in this country, and only 22 fatalities it's not a problem. lets add some facts.
in 1998, it was estimated there were 6,289,000 car crashes in the US and 41,611 deaths caused by crashes. out of a base automobile population of 132.4 million. source http://www.bts.gov/publications/nts/
also in 1998, there were an estimated 100,000 people hospitalized for the common flu out of 35-50 million cases. more than 20,000 die from it every year.
source.... www.cdc.gov
1998..... total us population 270,296,000 . total number of assaults reported in US 974,402. number of murders in US in same year..... 16,914
source... http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
i could go on and find about 50 more examples but i think these give the overall idea.
odds of being injured riding in a car 4%, odds of dying .03%
chance of getting the flu 18%, .03% recquire hospital and .007% of dying
chance of being assaulted by a human .3%, chance of being killed by one .006%
chance of getting attacked by a dog... 2%, .2% recquire hospital, and chance of dying .000008%.
i'll take those odds.
you made sure to highlight the part about rotts and pitbulls being most likely to kill someone. that is blatantly incorect, and in fact makes me doubt much of what the site says. according to http://www.fataldogattacks.com/statistics.html, the breakdown is Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).
statistical sampling as an indicator of behavior aside.... mutts are 76% as likely to kill a human as a pit. and MORE likely to kill a human than a rott or a GS.... where's the outcry to ban casual cross breeding?
to anyone that knows anything about statistical analysis, that HARDLY qualifies as "without a doubt". a margin of 4% +/- is nothing in statistics.
it also goes on to say "...at times informative, statistics on fatal dog attacks can also be misleading. For example, a number of cases were a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or GSD were counted as causing a human fatality were in reality the direct result of gross human negligence or criminal intent (i.e. discarding a newborn in the yard where the dogs were kept, or cases of extremely emaciated animals, or cases where the dog was ordered or encouraged to attack the victim)."
i'd still lay good money on the fact that MOST of those dog bites were the result of improper human action.
also, the site you're quoting from is an attorney specilizing in dog bite law and ambulance chasing people bitten by dogs. not a very persuasive source to support an argument.
peace
added after edit.... the fact remains that pits are not any more viscious than many other breeds. but people fear them, and because of their own irrational fear want to outlaw them.
i think we should also ban...
open spaces
heights
the number 13
water
tight spaces
dirt
that's kind of funny considering that's exactly what you tried to do.... they also go on to say....
"Considering the fact that there are 65 million dogs in the United States (see above), the homicide problem is minuscule. This is not to denigrate it, but to point out that eliminating it entirely would save only 15 to 20 people..."
and lets not forget, they also go on to say.... "However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. "
this is all pulled from the very website you quote as a source. you try and tie pitbulls to the yearly bites when the website SPECIFICALLY shows they are NOT responsible for it.
bites are not homicides.
perhaps i should have been more specific in my request for information. show me some proof that pitbulls are more responsible than any other breeds for these "millions" of bites each year.
you say i'm spinning statistics by saying that the fact that of 65 million dogs in this country, and only 22 fatalities it's not a problem. lets add some facts.
in 1998, it was estimated there were 6,289,000 car crashes in the US and 41,611 deaths caused by crashes. out of a base automobile population of 132.4 million. source http://www.bts.gov/publications/nts/
also in 1998, there were an estimated 100,000 people hospitalized for the common flu out of 35-50 million cases. more than 20,000 die from it every year.
source.... www.cdc.gov
1998..... total us population 270,296,000 . total number of assaults reported in US 974,402. number of murders in US in same year..... 16,914
source... http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
i could go on and find about 50 more examples but i think these give the overall idea.
odds of being injured riding in a car 4%, odds of dying .03%
chance of getting the flu 18%, .03% recquire hospital and .007% of dying
chance of being assaulted by a human .3%, chance of being killed by one .006%
chance of getting attacked by a dog... 2%, .2% recquire hospital, and chance of dying .000008%.
i'll take those odds.
you made sure to highlight the part about rotts and pitbulls being most likely to kill someone. that is blatantly incorect, and in fact makes me doubt much of what the site says. according to http://www.fataldogattacks.com/statistics.html, the breakdown is Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).
statistical sampling as an indicator of behavior aside.... mutts are 76% as likely to kill a human as a pit. and MORE likely to kill a human than a rott or a GS.... where's the outcry to ban casual cross breeding?
to anyone that knows anything about statistical analysis, that HARDLY qualifies as "without a doubt". a margin of 4% +/- is nothing in statistics.
it also goes on to say "...at times informative, statistics on fatal dog attacks can also be misleading. For example, a number of cases were a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or GSD were counted as causing a human fatality were in reality the direct result of gross human negligence or criminal intent (i.e. discarding a newborn in the yard where the dogs were kept, or cases of extremely emaciated animals, or cases where the dog was ordered or encouraged to attack the victim)."
i'd still lay good money on the fact that MOST of those dog bites were the result of improper human action.
also, the site you're quoting from is an attorney specilizing in dog bite law and ambulance chasing people bitten by dogs. not a very persuasive source to support an argument.
peace
added after edit.... the fact remains that pits are not any more viscious than many other breeds. but people fear them, and because of their own irrational fear want to outlaw them.
i think we should also ban...
open spaces
heights
the number 13
water
tight spaces
dirt
Last edited:
BruceLeeroy
Active member
thanx for the great advice guys. he's an excellent dog and doesn't show any aggression or anything like that, it's just that i percieve a tension when i pet his muzzle/fiddle with his bowl while he's eating. i want to take care of it before he gets any older. he's already 5. i could even be imagining it. lol.
G
Guest
a dog is gonna act how it was tought to act... the owners are the ones to blame... if your gonna teach your dog to protect you and guard your house, atleast do it responsible... keep your dog either fenced up where there is absolutely no way it can get out(pits our escape artists), in the house where you can put him up if someone comes over, or on a chain that is pretty damn thick cause pits are damn strong (mine has snapped 2 chains in half)
BruceLeeroy
Active member
heres a great one for ya....
Daily Camera reporter, Clay Evans
"According to statistics kept by city of Boulder Animal Care and Control, "labs" — as they are so innocently called — were responsible for an astonishing 18.9 percent of the 748 dog bites in the city from 1997 to 2003, more than twice as many as the next highest breed (German shepherds, at 8.5 percent)."
Daily Camera reporter, Clay Evans
"According to statistics kept by city of Boulder Animal Care and Control, "labs" — as they are so innocently called — were responsible for an astonishing 18.9 percent of the 748 dog bites in the city from 1997 to 2003, more than twice as many as the next highest breed (German shepherds, at 8.5 percent)."
BruceLeeroy
Active member
you're right. people that take in unloved, abused strays do so because they want a mean looking dog.
just because you're afraid of a breed because they look a certain way doesn't make them a meaner, more vicsious breed.
you're flat out admitting that you are judging based solely on looks
just because you're afraid of a breed because they look a certain way doesn't make them a meaner, more vicsious breed.
you're flat out admitting that you are judging based solely on looks
G
Guest
Smart advice Nite Tiger
G
Guest
And to you Bruce 
Very well said.
And Twilson, this thread was started to Promote pit bull responsibility. Seems some folks come in here are wanting to ban the breed. We don't want to hear your "I'm scared of your dog" agenda. Tell us (pit owners) what would make you feel safer. Go meet a pit. Do something other than bash our beloved dogs with 3rd party information.
Most ppl who are against bully breeds have never even met one. Pretty sad.
Seed
Very well said. And Twilson, this thread was started to Promote pit bull responsibility. Seems some folks come in here are wanting to ban the breed. We don't want to hear your "I'm scared of your dog" agenda. Tell us (pit owners) what would make you feel safer. Go meet a pit. Do something other than bash our beloved dogs with 3rd party information.
Most ppl who are against bully breeds have never even met one. Pretty sad.
Seed
Hey guys sorry I haven't participated in th thread lately. I'd like to say that just because me and many other pitbull owners take advantage of the fact that people are unjustly afraid of them and use that as a deterrent to protect me my family and my property does not mean I wouldn't rather people not be afraid of them. Every year it gets more difficult to place abandoned pitbulls because of people like twilson. At one point in american history these dogs were looked at as just general farm working dogs. You literaly see pitbull type dogs walking around without leashes everywhere in old photographs and you don't see people running for their lives or anything.
G
Guest
yea more than half of the people against pits and other big dogs have never encountered with one.. they are all scared to get close to them just because they "look mean"... lol i have 5 pits and im starting my own kennel... ne ways i have a blue pit and when hes on his chain he will bark and act like he owns everything, bark at people... but if you dont show your scared of him and just walkup to him hes like wtf? and chills out, doesnt bite or even bark once you get close. Just shows how "mean" they are lol
G
Guest
I had the munchies so I headed to Quizno's ( mmm toasty lol ) for a bite. When I got there I had to step around the mutt on the left, which was laying in front of the door, staring thru the glass at its dining owner. When I came out the big red nose was doing the same thing- staring thru the door.
I was very impressed. This pit didn't bat an eye at the other dog. When I came out of the restaurant he wagged his tail and licked my hands. A very good ambassador indeed.
Seed
I was very impressed. This pit didn't bat an eye at the other dog. When I came out of the restaurant he wagged his tail and licked my hands. A very good ambassador indeed.
Seed
G
Guest
This is why I hunt hogs. Substinance.
the only thing my lil girl every killed was a grasshopper,and thats only from PLAYING to rough,
its like rasceism but for dogs, damn theres alot ignorent people in this world
its funny when pot smokers have problems with pits,based soley on what they hear from the meida,kind of hypocritical, seeing as pot is in the same boat as pit bulls if you think about it
mmmm that looks good as hell,is there a gamey taste with wild hogs??
its like rasceism but for dogs, damn theres alot ignorent people in this world
its funny when pot smokers have problems with pits,based soley on what they hear from the meida,kind of hypocritical, seeing as pot is in the same boat as pit bulls if you think about it
mmmm that looks good as hell,is there a gamey taste with wild hogs??
