GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

WarChild · 08-23-2005, 01:42 PM

Even though apparently the CDC list of what they consider to be dangerous is the gospel according to No Carrier, let's examine what other people, experts in animals, think.

The Humane Society Of The United States: http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affe...rous_dogs.html

It is imperative that the dog population in the community be understood. To simply pull numbers of attacks does not give an accurate representation of a breed necessarily. For example, by reviewing a study that states there have been five attacks by golden retrievers in a community and 10 attacks by pit bulls in that same community it would appear that pit bulls are more dangerous. However, if you look at the dog populations in that community and learn that there are 50 golden retrievers present and 500 pit bulls, then the pit bulls are actually the safer breed statistically.

Is that exactly what I was trying to explain with percentage of population above?

The main conclusion of the study was that breed-specific legislation doesn't work for several reasons: that there are inherent problems in trying to determine a dog's breed, making enforcement of breed-specific legislation difficult at best; that fatal attacks represent a very small portion of bite-related injuries and should not be the major factor driving public policy; and that existing non-breed-specific legislation already exists and offers promise for the prevention of dog bites.

Oh what's this? People often can't identify dog breeds properly? Amazing!

Two decades ago, pit bulls and Rottweilers (the most recent breeds targeted) attracted little to no public concern. At that time it was the Doberman pinscher who was being vilified. In 2001, few people had heard of the Presa Canario breed, involved in the tragic, fatal attack on Diane Whipple in California in January of that year. Now that breed is being sought by individuals who desire the new "killer dog." Unfortunately, the "problem dog" at any given time is often the most popular breed among individuals who tend to be irresponsible, if not abusive, in the control and keeping of their pets. Simply put, if you ban one breed, individuals will just move on to another one. Banning a breed only speeds up the timetable.

So let's see. Vets, Rottweiler owners and the Humane Society says one thing, and No Carrier another. I know who'd I'd trust first.

08-23-2005, 01:42 PM
WarChild Let slip the dogs of war. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bermuda Posts: 17,263	Even though apparently the CDC list of what they consider to be dangerous is the gospel according to No Carrier, let's examine what other people, experts in animals, think. The Humane Society Of The United States: http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affe...rous_dogs.html It is imperative that the dog population in the community be understood. To simply pull numbers of attacks does not give an accurate representation of a breed necessarily. For example, by reviewing a study that states there have been five attacks by golden retrievers in a community and 10 attacks by pit bulls in that same community it would appear that pit bulls are more dangerous. However, if you look at the dog populations in that community and learn that there are 50 golden retrievers present and 500 pit bulls, then the pit bulls are actually the safer breed statistically. Is that exactly what I was trying to explain with percentage of population above? The main conclusion of the study was that breed-specific legislation doesn't work for several reasons: that there are inherent problems in trying to determine a dog's breed, making enforcement of breed-specific legislation difficult at best; that fatal attacks represent a very small portion of bite-related injuries and should not be the major factor driving public policy; and that existing non-breed-specific legislation already exists and offers promise for the prevention of dog bites. Oh what's this? People often can't identify dog breeds properly? Amazing! Two decades ago, pit bulls and Rottweilers (the most recent breeds targeted) attracted little to no public concern. At that time it was the Doberman pinscher who was being vilified. In 2001, few people had heard of the Presa Canario breed, involved in the tragic, fatal attack on Diane Whipple in California in January of that year. Now that breed is being sought by individuals who desire the new "killer dog." Unfortunately, the "problem dog" at any given time is often the most popular breed among individuals who tend to be irresponsible, if not abusive, in the control and keeping of their pets. Simply put, if you ban one breed, individuals will just move on to another one. Banning a breed only speeds up the timetable. So let's see. Vets, Rottweiler owners and the Humane Society says one thing, and No Carrier another. I know who'd I'd trust first. __________________ . Last edited by WarChild; 08-23-2005 at 01:44 PM..