TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...what DID I ask for??? for you to become aware of the magnitude of the problem...which has nothing to do with encouraging banning...dogs...guns...or lollipops...and what logic are you questioning? that there is a serious problem causing folks to go through suffering or death because dogowners aren't being responsible? what's wrong with that logic??? are you mad, too, because the government bans some imports or types of toys because of choking hazards or high lead levels??? YOU are the one talking about banning this or that...I'm pointing out that there's a serious problem...and if the 17 lives a year would include someone dear to you...you'd want something to be done, too...WHAT would be determined by those who got involved and made SOMETHING happen...and changed the laws...the government is supposed to enforce laws made to protect us...that's their job...deciding what they'll say and getting them passed...that's our job....

Forgive me....I responded to the website you provided the link for, based on the assumption that given your comment and the link, you support the advocacy found there. They clearly advocate banning various dog breeds, and the logic used to justify it is exactly the same as the logic used to justify banning guns.

As to the rest of it, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Yes, I'm against banning toys for choking hazards....it's the PARENTS responsibility to make sure their children have appropriate toys. Banning something for high lead levels is a little different, since there is no visible or practical way for a parent to know what the lead levels are. Even there, however, I favor clear notice or warnings rather than bans. Furthermore, a lot of these commercial bans are only ostensibly for what they claim....many times they are more favorable to a corporate interest in eliminating competition than they are to safety.

speedsix wrote: and if the 17 lives a year would include someone dear to you...you'd want something to be done, too

That's exactly the same emotional appeal used by Sarah Brady and the gun banners. I have been bitten by a dog. My son was bitten badly enough to require emergency room treatment. In that particular case I don't really fault the dog owner or the dog...some things just happen. And just as if my son had been shot by some thug I wouldn't be out advocating a gun ban because I wanted "something to be done," I'm not advocating dog bans.

Yes, for those attacked, killed, or mauled, or their loved ones, every attack is a serious problem. However, I don't see it as a social problem on a scale that justifies taking away the rights and freedom of people who own a certain kind of dog, or want to, and otherwise have done nothing wrong. I should have to kill my dog, or get rid of it, because the city I live in bans that particular breed due to some idiot that didn't control HIS dog? Wow.

You well know that the world is a dangerous place. There is no absolute safety. Just as I don't believe the threat posed by "terrorism" justifies the omni-spying National Security State, I don't believe the threat of dog attack justifies taking away the freedoms of thousands or millions of people to responsibly own the kind of dog they want and love.

Edited to add this:

I went back and looked at my post post and I think you've mischaracterized it. I directed all my criticism to the website you posted the link for ....not you personally. I merely pointed out a couple of things: 1) that it's a group with and agenda and people with an agenda tend to play fast and loose with the facts, so I wouldn't take their statistics at face value; and 2) that their use of language and logic is very similar to the logic and language of the Brady Bunch, and 3) that there are obvious indications of dishonesty between their own claims.

speedsix wrote:...your first post was about what I posted...your others went first person about what I think and support and so on...the point is that you took off on a tangent to what I posted, then tried to make me part of "they"...which I'm not...the title says what the point I was making was...not the solutions or how I feel about which one...simply that WE NEED A SOLUTION...

speedsix wrote:...the main difference is that their study is documented with facts and newspaper reports and law enforcement statistics...so we're dealing with hard, cold facts...something Brady hasn't bothered to do...so the analogy fails there...

...agenda? for sure...that's the reason the organization was begun...to expose and influence regulation on the effects of citizens not taking proper care of their animals...and the damage/pain/deaths caused when they don't...I'd say they're doing a good job of it...glad MY granddaughter and MY sons haven't made their lists...

...regardless of the site's agenda...the facts are still verifiable facts...for those who want to dig them out...and reach their own conclusions...two more incidents this year already that I know of...one a fatality...one a mauling where parents knew the danger...and are now in jail because they didn't act responsibly and their son got attacked...by their dog...

SRH78 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...the main difference is that their study is documented with facts and newspaper reports and law enforcement statistics...so we're dealing with hard, cold facts...something Brady hasn't bothered to do...so the analogy fails there...

Actually, that is not true at all. Their so called facts are anything but. They are merely a collection of hand picked media reports. The media doesn't report every time someone is bitten by a dog. They pick and choose what stories will get a reaction. They also don't even get the facts of those individual stories right. I have looked over their numbers before and they are ridiculously innaccurate. For some of the breeds listed, I personally know of more "attacks" requiring medical attention than what they have listed for the US and Canada over a 25 year period. These are people with an agenda who care nothing about the truth and prey on ignorance. I little time actually spent around dogs will blow huge holes in their lies.

VMI77 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...your first post was about what I posted...your others went first person about what I think and support and so on...the point is that you took off on a tangent to what I posted, then tried to make me part of "they"...which I'm not...the title says what the point I was making was...not the solutions or how I feel about which one...simply that WE NEED A SOLUTION...

Here's your reply to my first post:

speedsix wrote:...the main difference is that their study is documented with facts and newspaper reports and law enforcement statistics...so we're dealing with hard, cold facts...something Brady hasn't bothered to do...so the analogy fails there...

...agenda? for sure...that's the reason the organization was begun...to expose and influence regulation on the effects of citizens not taking proper care of their animals...and the damage/pain/deaths caused when they don't...I'd say they're doing a good job of it...glad MY granddaughter and MY sons haven't made their lists...

...regardless of the site's agenda...the facts are still verifiable facts...for those who want to dig them out...and reach their own conclusions...two more incidents this year already that I know of...one a fatality...one a mauling where parents knew the danger...and are now in jail because they didn't act responsibly and their son got attacked...by their dog...

Given your rather vigorous defense of the site and their claims, I don't think it's a big reach to assume you shared their views, and my subsequent responses were based on that assumption. However, it's true you didn't specifically support breed bans, so I apologize for making that assumption.

speedsix wrote:

SRH78 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...the main difference is that their study is documented with facts and newspaper reports and law enforcement statistics...so we're dealing with hard, cold facts...something Brady hasn't bothered to do...so the analogy fails there...

Actually, that is not true at all. Their so called facts are anything but. They are merely a collection of hand picked media reports. The media doesn't report every time someone is bitten by a dog. They pick and choose what stories will get a reaction. They also don't even get the facts of those individual stories right. I have looked over their numbers before and they are ridiculously innaccurate. For some of the breeds listed, I personally know of more "attacks" requiring medical attention than what they have listed for the US and Canada over a 25 year period. These are people with an agenda who care nothing about the truth and prey on ignorance. I little time actually spent around dogs will blow huge holes in their lies.

...so the media reports and police reports are lies??? neither they nor I claimed to have accurate records of how many times a dog's teeth break the skin of a human...NOBODY can do that...statistics...even the CDC's, are compiled from those reported by Drs., Hospitals, Newspapers and Police reports...and like sources...neither you nor I know that they're "hand picked"...or not...they're documented reports...with pictures, in many cases...so it will take more than the "little time actually spent around dogs" to make them go away...or prove them lies...documented events trump generalized, unsupported statements...facts are facts...the absence of other, related stories doesn't mean anyone's lying or covering up anything...neither the group who have the linked site, the man who made the 30-year report, nor the CDC would gain anything by reporting LESS bites than they could prove...how many reports they didn't find doesn't lessen the problem evidenced by the reports they DID find...a heckuva lotta dogs are not being restrained by their irresponsible owners and something needs to be changed...

SRH78 wrote:Also, I all for holding people responsible for the actions of their animals but let's not overlook the fact that many bring harm upon themselves. How many times have you seen someone walk right up to a dog that doesn't know them and just immediately put their hands on it? How many times have you seen someone expect to just barge into a yard and expect the dog to get out of their way? How many times have you seen kids run up to a dog, smile(showing teeth), get right in the dogs face and give it a hug(grab it by the face)? Their are plenty of irresponsible dog owners out their but their are also a lot of irresponsible people. Here is an example of just one of many such people I have had the misfortune of meeting. The kid comes running towards my dog. I told the kid to stop. The kid completely ignores me and runs into the dog, grabbing him by the head. The dog is obviously bothered by the kids actions but does nothing. He merely sits there and looks at me waiting for me do handle the kid. I seperate them and have words with the adult in charge of the kid. The adult does nothing. This is reapeated at least 5 or 6 more times. Finally, the dog has had enough and gives a quick growl, no biting or any attempt to harm the kid is made. The dog is simply verbalizing his displeasure at the situation. The adult goes nuts telling me I should have this vicious beast put down. I informed the so-called adult that their lack of taking responsibility for the kid was unacceptable and is what potentially put the kid in harms way and they were lucky the dog showed restraint and chose not to harm the kid. A great many so-called attacks occur just this way. How about we start charging these people? When the story came up, I easilyy I am amazed at the stupidity people display when it comes to dogs. My own stepson, before my wife and I got together, was "attacked" by a great dane. You won't find that in their statistics, btw. When the story came up, I said let me guess, "you were in his face?" He was. I said, "let me guess, you were smiling and showing teeth?" He was. He brought that one on himself, a fact he now understands. If you go up to a strange man, get in his face, and threaten him, it is your fault when he punches you in the face. What needs to happen is not only to punish the irresponsible owners but educate the many ignorant people who bring many of these incidents on themselves. Worrying about breeds is not only wrong, it completely overlooks the problem of irresponsible people.

SRH78 wrote:Also, I all for holding people responsible for the actions of their animals but let's not overlook the fact that many bring harm upon themselves. How many times have you seen someone walk right up to a dog that doesn't know them and just immediately put their hands on it? How many times have you seen someone expect to just barge into a yard and expect the dog to get out of their way? How many times have you seen kids run up to a dog, smile(showing teeth), get right in the dogs face and give it a hug(grab it by the face)? Their are plenty of irresponsible dog owners out their but their are also a lot of irresponsible people. Here is an example of just one of many such people I have had the misfortune of meeting. The kid comes running towards my dog. I told the kid to stop. The kid completely ignores me and runs into the dog, grabbing him by the head. The dog is obviously bothered by the kids actions but does nothing. He merely sits there and looks at me waiting for me do handle the kid. I seperate them and have words with the adult in charge of the kid. The adult does nothing. This is reapeated at least 5 or 6 more times. Finally, the dog has had enough and gives a quick growl, no biting or any attempt to harm the kid is made. The dog is simply verbalizing his displeasure at the situation. The adult goes nuts telling me I should have this vicious beast put down. I informed the so-called adult that their lack of taking responsibility for the kid was unacceptable and is what potentially put the kid in harms way and they were lucky the dog showed restraint and chose not to harm the kid. A great many so-called attacks occur just this way. How about we start charging these people? When the story came up, I easilyy I am amazed at the stupidity people display when it comes to dogs. My own stepson, before my wife and I got together, was "attacked" by a great dane. You won't find that in their statistics, btw. When the story came up, I said let me guess, "you were in his face?" He was. I said, "let me guess, you were smiling and showing teeth?" He was. He brought that one on himself, a fact he now understands. If you go up to a strange man, get in his face, and threaten him, it is your fault when he punches you in the face. What needs to happen is not only to punish the irresponsible owners but educate the many ignorant people who bring many of these incidents on themselves. Worrying about breeds is not only wrong, it completely overlooks the problem of irresponsible people.

speedsix wrote:


...what is the "it" that you don't buy? the facts??? the newspaper and police reports??? I'm glad that your experiences are better...maybe you handle dogs better than children and old people do...that's great...you evidently haven't been rendered a quadriplegic by a drunken driver, either...does that mean that others...a lot of others...haven't? of course not...I've never been bitten by a snake, either...but I have no trouble "buying" that others have...and been killed...

speedsix wrote:

SRH78 wrote:Also, I all for holding people responsible for the actions of their animals but let's not overlook the fact that many bring harm upon themselves. How many times have you seen someone walk right up to a dog that doesn't know them and just immediately put their hands on it? How many times have you seen someone expect to just barge into a yard and expect the dog to get out of their way? How many times have you seen kids run up to a dog, smile(showing teeth), get right in the dogs face and give it a hug(grab it by the face)? Their are plenty of irresponsible dog owners out their but their are also a lot of irresponsible people. Here is an example of just one of many such people I have had the misfortune of meeting. The kid comes running towards my dog. I told the kid to stop. The kid completely ignores me and runs into the dog, grabbing him by the head. The dog is obviously bothered by the kids actions but does nothing. He merely sits there and looks at me waiting for me do handle the kid. I seperate them and have words with the adult in charge of the kid. The adult does nothing. This is reapeated at least 5 or 6 more times. Finally, the dog has had enough and gives a quick growl, no biting or any attempt to harm the kid is made. The dog is simply verbalizing his displeasure at the situation. The adult goes nuts telling me I should have this vicious beast put down. I informed the so-called adult that their lack of taking responsibility for the kid was unacceptable and is what potentially put the kid in harms way and they were lucky the dog showed restraint and chose not to harm the kid. A great many so-called attacks occur just this way. How about we start charging these people? When the story came up, I easilyy I am amazed at the stupidity people display when it comes to dogs. My own stepson, before my wife and I got together, was "attacked" by a great dane. You won't find that in their statistics, btw. When the story came up, I said let me guess, "you were in his face?" He was. I said, "let me guess, you were smiling and showing teeth?" He was. He brought that one on himself, a fact he now understands. If you go up to a strange man, get in his face, and threaten him, it is your fault when he punches you in the face. What needs to happen is not only to punish the irresponsible owners but educate the many ignorant people who bring many of these incidents on themselves. Worrying about breeds is not only wrong, it completely overlooks the problem of irresponsible people.

...try using those FACTS in court to explain why your dog on a leash bit someone and the judge'll tell you the responsibility is all yours to keep your dog in public from biting someone...they don't legislate stupid people...the times I was bitten were all logical, too...but two of the three were after I was invited to come onto the property to work...the owner didn't put the dog up...it wasn't the dog's fault...people like yourself who have to go into the yard(and the meter readers here WON'T) shouldn't have to deal with a loose dog...as you say you have done...you have to "barge" into the yard to do your job...shouldn't the dog be restrained or warning signs put up???you get hazard pay for what you do??? don't think so...as to breeds, which seems to be the main concern of those replying to my post...NOT ONE of my bites was a pit or a rotty...they still hurt...the shepherd who bit me was 100% my fault...it hurt too...
...which do you think will bring the death toll and injury count down quickest? educating the ignorant...or punishing the negligent???

speedsix wrote:...I never said that they were...and the numbers on the sources I posted say what they say...I'm sorry 'bout that...I have had MANY pit bulls run up and waller me over as I knelt down...wigglin' and slobberin'...and I STILL don't have a clue who they belonged to...the DOG is not to blame for ANY BITE, in my book...
...since nobody ASKED ME...I'm for megafines and JAILTIME for those who let their dogs bite someone OFF OF THEIR PROPERTY...and for the dogs being taken from them...unless the dog was defending an attack on the owner...aint' that a tough stance, though??...if they did that...the numbers would drop radically...and that IS my opinion...

urnoodle wrote:I am a dog owner and I love dogs. Pitbulls and rottweilers are breeds that frighten me. Chiguaguas are cute but I've been bitten by some pretty aggressive ones. The only difference was their size made them manageable. I read the article but one part of the data I see missing is whether it included provoked and/or unprovoked dogs. Pitbulls and rottweilers are most often used for home protection so there would be increased instances where the dogs were provoked in home or property invasions. They were bred to be more aggressive. The next time someone breaks into my home, I hope my dog maims or kills the perpetrator. My dog is a lab/golden retriever and is not a threat to anyone however she will defend. My HOA prohibits homeowners from having pitbulls. I can't say I disagree with that. A friend of mine has one and she is extremely gentle but I'm still very cautious around her. When she plays she latches on to a toy and won't let go. It's not a stretch to see her toggle at a moments notice from play to engaged when she is surprised. I don't believe in putting dogs down for no reason. Don't blame the dog, its only doing what it was taught to do. There should be stiffer penalties for homeowners when their dog attacks unprovoked. For the future of the breeds, breeders should be required to mix them with a less aggressive breed (with similar features) to reduce the aggression. Pitbulls and rottweilers are beautiful dogs. I'd hate to see the breeds disappear.