Man fatally mauled, dog killed, by pit bulls on dog walk

[beowulf]

@Sswor

[/B]

What about the other 40%? What about dogs that show aggression other then intermale aggression? You could conclude there was little or no difference after neutering in these dogs. As we can see by reading further.

And the other 75%?? Little to no change is suggested.

And the other 85-90%?? Little to no change.

Neutering is no silver bullet. I’d argue that training is. Same with stallions. But training is hard. Cutting off testicles is easy, and we all know people like easy fixes, even when they don’t really work.

as noted in my post, it does not work with ALL dogs. Nothing works with ALL dogs. Obviously. But it works with some, and that is more than enough.

Would you say that chemotherapy does not work, period, just because some % of people don’t survive it? Or would you say it has a significant impact on cancer, but is not “one-fix-cure-all”?

How about the pill? Would you say it absolutely does not work ever, just because some % of women still get pregnant?

No, you wouldn’t. I don’t see how this study is any different, except it is supporting something you feel is wrong, so you’re trying to poke holes in it. The fact of the matter is the study revealed that neutering curbs and reduces aggression in dogs. All dogs? No. Most dogs? Yes.

Neutering certainly reduces aggression in many dogs, as evidenced in the study, there was a noted and remarkable decrease in intermale aggression in more than half the subjects– that is really saying something.

It again, comes down to management and knowledge of the handler – a bad owner will make a bad dog, period. It doesn’t help when that bad dog has a pair of cojones and is hyper-aggro because of it.

There’s a reason people started the practice of neutering animals and is has a lot to do with mitigating and limiting unwanted aggressive behavior.

Neilson, Eckstein, and Hart, (1997) found that approximately 25% of adult dogs that were aggressive toward humans or other dogs in the household can be expected to have a 50 to 90% level of improvement after gonadectomy.

You said “little to no change”. I think you need to re-read – 50-90% change is more than half to almost all not “little to no change”.

This is a study for neutering adult dogs only and does not include training, or neutering at a juvenile age pre-sexual development. If you included training, or if you included neutering at an earlier age (before secondary sexual characteristics were developed) you would probably see tremendous improvement. But again, it goes back to the “bad owner, bad dog” cycle - dog isn’t going to win, period, if the hands that raise it are bad.

[Sswor]

@beowulf

Neilson, Eckstein, and Hart, (1997) found that approximately 25% of adult dogs that were aggressive toward humans or other dogs in the household can be expected to have a 50 to 90% level of improvement after gonadectomy.

You said “little to no change”. I think you need to re-read – 50-90% change is more than half to almost all not “little to no change”.

Take your own advice. 75% of dogs in the study showed little to no change.

[khall]

quote from CT: Just because dogsbite isn’t 100% accurate, doesn’t mean that much of it isn’t accurate. All of the research links you have supplied can also be questioned for accuracy, research is disproven on a regular basis.

Actually yes much if not all of dogsbite is not accurate. It is NOT a scientific based research based organization that has done extensive research using FACTS to come to their conclusion.

"Quote from this site: https://www.thedodo.com/five-dog-pages-you-need-to-stop-linking-to-1091066497.html [h=2]5. Dogsbite.org[/h]
Myth and falsehood of an entirely different kind are the purview of Dogsbite. The site claims to be “a research and education nonprofit organization dedicated to conducting research on the growing, but underreported, public safety issue of severe and fatal dog attacks inflicted by well-documented dangerous dog breeds”, but is in fact little more than a campaign for the destruction of pit bulls.

Dogsbite runs a slick operation, and is often mistaken for an expert voice on the issue of dog aggression and breed-specific legislation, but in fact it has been demonstrated to be no such thing. The “academic” who is supposed to lend authority to their claims, Merritt Clifton, has repeatedly been shown to have engaged in professional fraud. Furthermore, the evidence he has put forward has been dissected and demonstrated to be lacking in basic logical sense.

The website publishes news articles about dog attacks, albeit selectively, choosing to report most thoroughly on pit bull attacks and rarely mentioning any other breed. Such bias makes dogsbite.org an untrustworthy source of information and a reservoir of disturbingly violent opinion, covered with a patina of concern for safety and help for victims."

Except this research has been born out over and over again against BSL world wide no less.

Quote from CT: When a fatality caused by a dog happens the dog is taken into custody and a registered/certified vet identifies the dog with their experience and expertise. I would think that without doing a DNA test, the majority of vets can identify a dog that has at least some percent of pit bull cross in them. Personally I would love to see DNA tests of killer dogs become mandatory in the investigations. Then the proof would be there with no room for complain about how they’re identified.

Again, no you cannot with 100% accuracy know the genetic profile of a dog UNLESS you do a DNA test or have breed papers. That is what the American Veterinary Medical Ass (AVMA) and the Journal of American Veterinary Medical Ass (JAVMA) has concluded (among other CREDIBLE fact based organizations). The case of Niko was prime example, he is/was 70% boxer but was seized by AC because he was a “pit bull” type.

Sswor, never have I said that neutering would fix the entire problem. Other than the FACT that 84% of the dogs involved in dog bite fatalities were from intact male dogs, there is not much else to take from this. Since there are many factors involved in dog bite fatalities, the intact male dog is just one of them. But having good spay/neuter laws (of which I wish were more widespread but BREEDERS are often against these, puppy mills especially) are just one avenue to help two fold: control the pet population and POSSIBLY reduce the number of dog bite fatalities. I have promoted altering of the block heads/bullies because I too know there are too many out there, indiscriminately breeding and cross breeding and often abused and neglected. I have also promoted education like Calgary and the ATL rescue I support as well as my own foster dogs that I TRAIN. I support education about dog behavior for humans not just training dogs. I support a multi faceted approach to help prevent dog bites and dog bite fatalities. Altering the dogs is just one of them.

[Sswor]

Glossing over the fact that it’s pretty simple to look at a pic of a dog that fatally mauled a person and seeing that it is clearly a pit bull–85.7% of the time (30 out of 35). Again–seems the only people who cannot ID a pit bull/type on sight are the breed/type’s advocates–and ONLY when a member of the breed/type advocate is accused of aggression. Accused of cuddling? 100% positive ID.

[skyon]

@khall

Dogsbite runs a slick operation, .

At minimum Dogsbite tracks and discusses dog bites and attacks created by someone who was attacked.

Exactly as it is titled.

Animal Farm, however, a huge $$$$ pitbull lobbyist organization that has nothing to do with animals or farms… nope… not slick at all…

[khall]

SSwor, nope still not buying it, you can report your “facts” all you want to but they are misguided at best and out right false in many cases as has been proven over and over again by reputable organizations. Carry on with your bias, nothing I say will change your mind because of your willful ignorance.

Skyon some posters are using dogsbite as “facts” to back up their assertion that BSLs are effective and should be implemented widely both in the US and Canada. There are no facts in dogsbite there is just biased reporting. That is why I look at reputable, credible organizations like CDC, AVMA, ABA among others that have done studies and research not just looked at news reports. AFF is not an organization I have sited for facts other than one time that had compiled the list of organizations against BSLs. Because I know AFF is biased FOR the bullies, where dogsbite is biased AGAINST the bullies. I look for organizations who “have no dog in the fight”.

[beowulf]

@khall

SSwor, nope still not buying it, you can report your “facts” all you want to but they are misguided at best and out right false in many cases as has been proven over and over again by reputable organizations. Carry on with your bias, nothing I say will change your mind because of your willful ignorance.

Skyon some posters are using dogsbite as “facts” to back up their assertion that BSLs are effective and should be implemented widely both in the US and Canada. There are no facts in dogsbite there is just biased reporting. That is why I look at reputable, credible organizations like CDC, AVMA, ABA among others that have done studies and research not just looked at news reports. AFF is not an organization I have sited for facts other than one time that had compiled the list of organizations against BSLs. Because I know AFF is biased FOR the bullies, where dogsbite is biased AGAINST the bullies. I look for organizations who “have no dog in the fight”.

or, at worst, will deliberately misread one small margin of text, blow it out of proportion, and declare that their misguided, misread margin of text is now irrefutable and undeniable truth

shoulda quit when the crazy train rolled – don’t know what I was thinking

[khall]

beowulf, me too, willful ignorance reins supreme in some posters here. Ah well, like I said carry on! Thanks for your level headed contributes though.

[Thylacine]

just to be clear, decade/more ago I voted for (Tas state) BSLegislation. I own that (it’s on record so can hardly deny it anyway. lol)

however, in my state BSL has pretty much morphed into Dangerous Dog Legislation - and if You own a DD then you are up for spending some serious dosh on fencing, license, insurance plus many other financial incidentals like legals fees…
funny, but once a canine has been declared Dangerous pretty much every owner either surrenders ownership to Council or takes the dog to the vet & pts themselves.
very very few are prepared to spend the money or the time that being the steward of a DD involves.

like all Legislation DDL has its flaws, but as it currently stands, I support DDL.

(and yes I did read the thread in its entirety - even the posts of one who i have on Ignore. groan since the ‘changeover’ the Ignore Function ignores any and all requests i make of it so I cannot say it doesn’t work. . . )

[rubles]

@khall

beowulf, me too, willful ignorance reins supreme in some posters here. Ah well, like I said carry on! Thanks for your level headed contributes though.

I think you’ve done everything possible about the BSL legislation. BSL exists in Ontario. Still the postings against pit bulls continue. Talk about obsessive behaviour. In my opinion that obsessiveness is dangerous to every breed. I think it’s time to turn my back on this thread. Zealots can’t be reasoned with even when they get what they want condemning many innocent dogs in the process. Bless you for helping PB’s as you have been doing. Keep up the good work.

[rubles]

@beowulf

or, at worst, will deliberately misread one small margin of text, blow it out of proportion, and declare that their misguided, misread margin of text is now irrefutable and undeniable truth

shoulda quit when the crazy train rolled – don’t know what I was thinking

Two thumbs up for your final sentence. So now I’m doing what you “shoulda”.

[CanadianTrotter]

@beowulf

gladly:
http://www.ckc.ca/en/News/2015/Feb/CKC-Top-10-Dogs

no husky/malamute on that list… because they are not the most popular dog by far.

and to be specific, the dog that is actually most widespread in the “far north” is actually not husky or malamute at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Eskimo_Dog

Ummmm…we’re talking about far north and the only time you’ll find any of those breeds that far north would be inside a well heated house laying on a couch.

Secondly the Canadian Eskimo Dog is also generally and quite often called a Husky…which is exactly what I called it, as most Canadians I know do as well.

It also says this in the very link you posted…

Other Names

• Canadian Husky
• Canadian Inuit Dog
• C. familiaris borealis
• Exquimaux Husky

Not to be confused with the Siberian Husky...of course.

It’s unfortunate in a debate when a person does not take their own advice. If you had thoroughly read the educational link(not study)you provided you would have been more informed and not come across as being hypocrytical.

[CanadianTrotter]

@khall

Carry on with your bias, nothing I say will change your mind because of your willful ignorance.

I look for organizations who “have no dog in the fight”.

You keep throwing the term willful ignorance around as if you are not being willfully ignorant yourself.

If you actually think that any organization that does these studies you claim are true has, “no dog in the fight”, you are being very naive.

Many studies done by so-called reputable organizations are actually conducted improperly and confirmation bias is rampant among scholars and stats experts.

[khall]

CT except that the same results i.e. that BSLs do nothing to reduce dog bite fatalities have been found world wide, not just US. Study after study has shown this to be true, for various reasons. So no I am not being willfully ignorant here at all. I have looked at the issue of BSL pretty dang thoroughly. You are using deflection when you say and I quote: Many studies done by so-called reputable organizations are actually conducted improperly and confirmation bias is rampant among scholars and stats experts.

Show me proof that these studies were improperly conducted. All the great many of them.

[CanadianTrotter]

Khall…a BSL is breed specific as you well know. A pit bull ban is not enforced to stop or reduce dog bite fatalities by every other breed. A pit bull ban is enforced to stop/lessen the bites/attacks/maulings/deaths and overpopulation of…pit bulls.

I didn’t say, “these studies”, I said studies in general. Assuming that none of the organizations you believe in haven’t made mistakes or have no bias is being willfuly ignorant.

[CanadianTrotter]

@beowulf

uhh… WHAT?! You DON’T think neutering reduces aggression in most dogs?! then why the F do we neuter anything anyway? stallions? dogs? cats? we sure as heck don’t do it to control the population.

It is NOT a coincidence that intact male dogs are the perpetrator of over 80% of fatal attacks. Anyone who has handled a stallion would understand that an intact male is very, very different than a neutered one. But… carry on…

I’ve handled many stallions and owned several, except for around breeding season or another animal that questioned their dominance, they weren’t much different at all. Stallions are as much a product of their environment as an intact male dog.

High testosterone is not a cause of aggression…it’s an accomplice.

My shepherd was neutered and yes it gave him a bit of a more relaxed attitude and behaviour. But if he was faced with a situation that he believed required aggression, he would go from 0 to 20 in a second. It was in his breed personality and behaviours. He didn’t all of a sudden stop or even slightly lesson/lower guarding traits just because his testosterone levels were lower.

I think it’s quite doubtful that the over 80% of intact male dogs that caused fatal attacks as your sources claim, were neutered, would have made much of a difference in the outcome.

[khall]

CT BSLs are enacted to supposedly reduce dog bite fatalities period. They target a specific type of dog because of the mistaken belief it is that type of dog that causes the most fatalities. The JAVMA found in their 10 yr study that not to be true, with 20 different breeds represented in dog bite fatalities. That is why BSLs do not work to reduce dog bite fatalities. Your bias is well known at this time, and for some reason you are not concerned with overall dog bite fatalities only ones caused by the bullies or what is perceived as bully breeds (BTW a boxer is not a pit bull type!)

Well considering I have cited the CDC and ABA (American Bar Ass) yeah I am pretty sure they have no bias, so no not willfully ignorant. You on the other hand refuse to acknowledge that the great many studies out there that show BSLs does nothing to reduce dog bite fatalities and hold to your beliefs that implementing BSLs is the way to reduce such fatalities shows how mistaken and ignorant you are being.

Good grief now you are bringing stallions into the mix, another deflection and ignorant comparison. You do realize you cannot treat stallions like you would a gelding don’t you? You cannot put them in a mixed heard and not have issues and unwanted breedings. Stallions are territorial and can be very dangerous to handle around other stallions and during breeding season. BTW I handled breeding stallions for a living for 4 yrs, we had 9 at the vet clinic I worked for and outside stallions hauled in for collecting. So I am pretty familiar with the testosterone issue when handling stallions. Have a scar on my arm from one outside stallion.

Altering a male dog helps reduce the wander lust that an unaltered male dog would have looking for a female in heat. That is just one instance of how neutering would help. You have no facts to back up your statement: doubtful that the over 80% of intact male dogs that caused fatal attacks as your sources claim, were neutered, would have made much of a difference in the outcome. None. Only your one anecdotal experience with your own personal dog. If nothing less to reduce the unwanted pet population, altering dogs (and cats) is a great idea, very much so worth making laws and enforcing them.

[Sswor]

Hey Khall, can you list those “20 different breeds” involved in the fatal attacks that you are citing? I’d be curious what they are.

I’d also be curious if the 20 different breeds were exhibited in mixes with pit bull/types. Aka, pit/rot cross, pit/mastiff cross, pit/corso cross, pit/akita cross, etc. Willing to bet there’s more to the story being cited here.

[CaliforniaDreamer]

You can’t teach someone who refuses to be educated. Certainly valiant effort was made, but unfortunately you can’t influence anyone who is closed minded.

[CanadianTrotter]

@khall

CT BSLs are enacted to supposedly reduce dog bite fatalities period. They target a specific type of dog because of the mistaken belief it is that type of dog that causes the most fatalities. The JAVMA found in their 10 yr study that not to be true, with 20 different breeds represented in dog bite fatalities. That is why BSLs do not work to reduce dog bite fatalities. Your bias is well known at this time, and for some reason you are not concerned with overall dog bite fatalities only ones caused by the bullies or what is perceived as bully breeds (BTW a boxer is not a pit bull type!)

It is not a mistaken belief that it is a type of dog(pit bulls/pit bull types/pit bull crosses) that have caused the most fatalities…it is a fact.

Did the JAVMA cover the entire US in their study?

I have absolutely no bias against pit bulls at all. If it was any other dog breed that had the number of fatalities the pit bulls do, I would be saying the exact same about them. My bias is against the fatalities and reducing their numbers as quickly and efficiently as possible. I am not willing to wait for idiot and irresponsible owners to possibly respond to “Let’s educate dog owners/Everybody spay/neuter”, and allow more innocent deaths to occur while pro pit bull people are twiddling their thumbs waiting and hoping all dog owners will jump on their bandwagon. How many more innocent people have to die before you get all these irresponsible people to actually listen to you? Your ideas on how to fix the pit bull problems are big of you and might actually reduce fatality numbers years down the road…but what about now? Is it just a case of “Another one bites the dust”, until your ideas actually work?

Forgive me for my, “I want the fatalities to stop NOW” bias.

I have absolutely no idea what your little nugget of the boxer breed wisdom is meant for, they are not included in Ontario’s pit bull/pit bull type BSL. If they are not purebred boxer and crossed with some pit bull type or cross…that’s an entirely different matter

Well considering I have cited the CDC and ABA (American Bar Ass) yeah I am pretty sure they have no bias, so no not willfully ignorant. You on the other hand refuse to acknowledge that the great many studies out there that show BSLs does nothing to reduce dog bite fatalities and hold to your beliefs that implementing BSLs is the way to reduce such fatalities shows how mistaken and ignorant you are being.

Of course the American Bar Assoc. wouldn’t be biased, twist things or lie to suit their own purpose.

Good grief now you are bringing stallions into the mix, another deflection and ignorant comparison. You do realize you cannot treat stallions like you would a gelding don’t you? You cannot put them in a mixed heard and not have issues and unwanted breedings. Stallions are territorial and can be very dangerous to handle around other stallions and during breeding season. BTW I handled breeding stallions for a living for 4 yrs, we had 9 at the vet clinic I worked for and outside stallions hauled in for collecting. So I am pretty familiar with the testosterone issue when handling stallions. Have a scar on my arm from one outside stallion.

Ummm…no, Beowulf brought up stallions. I was only responding to what she said. Perhaps you should take beowulf’s advice and read for content before accusing and insulting a person in what one could hope could remain a civil debate?

Altering a male dog helps reduce the wander lust that an unaltered male dog would have looking for a female in heat. That is just one instance of how neutering would help. You have no facts to back up your statement: doubtful that the over 80% of intact male dogs that caused fatal attacks as your sources claim, were neutered, would have made much of a difference in the outcome. None. Only your one anecdotal experience with your own personal dog. If nothing less to reduce the unwanted pet population, altering dogs (and cats) is a great idea, very much so worth making laws and enforcing them.

And you have absolutely no proof that any of the supposed 80% of intact dogs that caused fatal attacks as your sources claim, would not have cause a fatality if they had been neutered.