*THE HULL TRUTH is the world's largest FREE network for the discussion of Boating & Fishing. Whether you're researching a new boat, or are a seasoned Captain, you'll find The Hull Truth Boating & Fishing Message Forum contains a wealth of information from Boaters and Sportfishermen around the world.
Welcome to the updated THT!
If you are having trouble signing in, please email feedback@thehulltruth.com with your username and we will help you. We thank you for your patience as we help you access the new site!
glacierbaze - 2/3/2009 6:53 AM I'd really like to see the source on that last item.
If you are talking about the "cops" one, I paraphrased. It is the statistic of deaths during arrest, detention etc in a law enforcement situation.
__________________ "a doughnut is only one step above a rent rod"
jeffrow - 2/3/2009 9:37 AM Ok..... how about pit bull attacks and bites of people and other animals as a percentage of total dog bites or attacks?
The pit-nutters prefer reference to victims as statistics.
And the Pit Hysteria Nutters prefer talking in the third person and sensational statements.
Facts are facts, that is, well, a fact. There are plenty of facts out there. As you can see Surfergirl is trying to infer (sensatiaonalize) that I (nutter, moron, ignorant) am heartless and care nothing for human life etc. And that I want to loose my pack of Mangy PIt Bull Dogs on society. (I dont even have a dog!)That way, she THINKS that will misdirect people from FACTS. The more she (and other sensationalizers) can attack and try to marginalize their perceived "opponents", the more smug they feel in their world. Thats OK I guess. It is funny to me to hear (apparently) rational adults try to sensationalize around facts. I think that She and Mr. Eyeball etc are all entitled to theur opinions, its funny that the Surfchic doesnt seem to think I am entitled to mine. I think that if the Surfer's idea of a good life is to not own a Pitbull, thats fine, I support her not owning one, or anybody else for that matter. Thats what you call a CHOICE, and its everybodies right to make. Because you are hysterical over an issue doesnt give you some rightousness regarding it, it gives you an opinion, thats all. Just like I have an opinion. This heres amercuh folks, we get to be self determined until we give those rights away. We keep giving them away, one day youll wish you hadnt.
Anybody can see that if you are more likely to die by sticking your head in a bucket, than from a dog attack, tha there MAY be a little sensationalism at play.
Like these folks who allowed themselves to be cowed and convinced and sold and embarrased into throwing away their rights.
I am seriously not trying to start any crap here; just curious about the Pit Bull stat listed.
Quote:
doughnut - 2/3/2009 10:46 AM
13 "pitbulls" were involved in 8 fatal attacks
Do you know if this means that out of the 8 fatal attacks by Pits, nearly half were "pack style attacks" or were there only 13 PB attacks of which 8 were fatal?
I wonder what the stat of non fatal stats involving Pit Bulls are and the number of those that attacked in packs (if applicable)?
__________________ What kind of cosmic bunny hole is THT? Breast implants seem to be a moral issue.... They're BOOBS!!!
Mersiles - 2/3/2009 8:21 AM Doughnut, I am seriously not trying to start any crap here; just curious about the Pit Bull stat listed.
Quote:
doughnut - 2/3/2009 10:46 AM
13 "pitbulls" were involved in 8 fatal attacks
Do you know if this means that out of the 8 fatal attacks by Pits, nearly half were "pack style attacks" or were there only 13 PB attacks of which 8 were fatal? I wonder what the stat of non fatal stats involving Pit Bulls are and the number of those that attacked in packs (if applicable)?
It would appear to mean that of all dog fatalities 8 of those fatalities involved 13 pitbulls. Which could infer that there was more than one dog involved in one or more of those fatal attacks. Thats the thing with statistics, they are numbers, in this case, did not specify by incident, the parameters invoved therein.. Their use is to establish a baseline from which to deduce information. I am sure I could head to the library and drill down for more, but my intention was to furnish easily obtainable information that MIGHT suggest there are bigger issues than the dreaded pitbull. Plus. I am just not that smart.
Again- I agree that there are bad dogs in the world, I live in a heavy pitbull population area, never had one display agressive behavior towards me or anybody I know. I dont have one, but if I wanted one, I would have one. If it was overtly aggressive and intaractable, I would put it down. Put I WOULD NOT go kill somebodies dog because of what might happen.
__________________ "a doughnut is only one step above a rent rod"
Im not trying to score points with you my friend. I'll wait for your "ban the buckets" thread. Get that done and you will save a heck of allot of stupid people.
Score points? What do you mean by that? Members here will like me less or more because I think that owning a pitbull is a personal responsibility? That I will get friends because I stand inline while my rights are eroded and my countries history of personal responsibilty is handed over to my goverment? I can live with that. As I have said before (and is SOME HOW getting overlooked) I don't condone ownership of, nor support the result of, bad dogs. I know it is convenient to label ne that way, but it's not the case. Again, this isnt personal, this is a debate and a discussion.
__________________ "a doughnut is only one step above a rent rod"
twentynine - 2/3/2009 12:41 PM doughnut-- give it up, you are not going to change any one's mind, nor or you going to score any points. Fact is by your own statistics, if they weren't no pitbulls around we would have 8 fewer deaths. Okay I'll make that trade.
104, 40% of all dog attack deaths.......I wish this data was more up to date as there seems to be an increase since 2006, from all the attack accounts posted recently. [img]../images/emoticons/frown.gif[/img]Death by any means is unfortunate, but being taken down by an animal has got to rank as a "most horrible" way to go.
twentynine - 2/3/2009 12:41 PM doughnut-- give it up, you are not going to change any one's mind, nor or you going to score any points. Fact is by your own statistics, if they weren't no pitbulls around we would have 8 fewer deaths. Okay I'll make that trade.
104, 40% of all dog attack deaths.......I wish this data was more up to date as there seems to be an increase since 2006, from all the attack accounts posted recently. [img]../images/emoticons/frown.gif[/img]*Death by any means is unfortunate, but being taken down by an animal has got to rank as a "most horrible" way to go.
Too bad that the chart doesn't cut n paste and keep its format. Here is some text from the last part after the author discusses that insurance companies are cracking down.........
One might hope that educating the public against the
acquisition of dangerous dogs would help; but the very traits that make
certain breeds dangerous also appeal to a certain class of dog owner. Thus
publicizing their potentially hazardous nature has tended to increase these
breeds' popularity.
The humane community does not try to encourage the adoption of pumas in
the same manner that we encourage the adoption of felis catus, because even
though a puma can also be box-trained and otherwise exhibits much the same
indoor behavior, it is clearly understood that accidents with a puma are
frequently fatal.
For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to
regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no
matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary
circumstances.
Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is
relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment,
someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the
actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a
Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that
has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as
their victims are paying the price.
Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be
handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special
requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other
animals, if they are to be kept at all.
The traditional approach to dangerous dog legislation is to allow "one
free bite," at which point the owner is warned. On second bite, the dog
is killed. The traditional approach, however, patently does not apply in
addressing the threats from pit bull terriers, Rottweilers, and wolf
hybrids. In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the
life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous
behavior by the animal in question. Children and elderly people were almost
always the victims.
He lists a Pug/Rottweiler mix as having attacked someone. . . . . .. think about it for a second. Pug. . . . . . . . .Rottweiler. . . . . . . . . . . I'm just sayin'
__________________ "a doughnut is only one step above a rent rod"
... Thats the thing with statistics, they are numbers ...
The recurring theme that appears over and over and over is that a family's pit bull pet, having never shown a sign of aggression, suddenly, for no explainable reason, flipped out and attacked unprovoked. The result is serious harm or death. No other kind of dog shares that attribute.
From your numbers -- "In 2000, there were approximately 5.3 million ( 5300000) pitbulls in the USA." -- we can conclude in 2000 there were 5.3 million pit bulls that could potentially flip out and cause serious harm or death. And no one knows which of those 5.3 million pit bulls is going to be the ones that flip out and attack, unprovoked.
They are only two kinds of pit bulls; those that attack unprovoked, and those that will potentially attack unprovoked. That is why it is so damn important to ban pit bulls.
"we can conclude in 2000 there were 5.3 million pit bulls that could potentially flip out and cause serious harm or death."
No, you could not conclude that in a logical argument. You COULD conclude that a similar percentage of pit bulls could exhibit that behavior, no matter what their population, based on this info. So you would need 50 BILLION pit bulls to catch up with theose Rat Bastage Bucket manufacturers disregard for human life.
__________________ "a doughnut is only one step above a rent rod"
The safety and lives of innocent persons and animals are not yours to bet.
[/quote]
Using that logic we should ban everything that can possibly take a life.
Aren't you a Ron Paul supporter??? Your perception doesn't seem to align with his position of personal responsibility.
You people better wake up and stop pi$$ing your freedom away. This is the same lame argument that is used to ban everything under the sun all under the false pretense of "public safety".
They use the same argument for gun control, yet far more childrens lives are taken by pool drownings and bicycle accidents, and a number of other "safe" activities each year.
Pit bulls have gotten such a bad rap because they are predominantly the dog of choice for drug dealers and thugs that use them for dog fighting. I have been around a number of them that were extremely loving and friendly.
The responsibility falls on the owner, as it is their responsibility to be in control of the animal at all times.
You people better wake up and stop pi$$ing your freedom away. This is the same lame argument that is used to ban everything under the sun all under the false pretense of "public safety".
Perhaps you misunderstand the issue. We are talking about an animal that attacks without provocation. It is a biological entity that decides on its own when, and who/what it will attack. Guns don't do that. A bottle of beer doesn't do that. A pack of cigarettes can't do that. No other kind of dog was designed to do that.
There is no valid reason for pit bulls, dogs designed to be aggressive, to attach unprovoked, to exist. None. They have no place in society. They need to be banned.
"Guns don't do that. A bottle of beer doesn't do that. A pack of cigarettes can't do that. " You combine two ofthose items on that list and you get more death than ever imagined from dogs.
Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a yearThird leading cause of mortality, government study finds
thats a MSN headline. not made up by me.
Spend some time talking to those that have been abused by alchoholics, they will tell you that it is nearly ALWAYS unprovoked. THEREFORE: Booze should be banned, oh thats right, to much tax advantage to having it.
__________________ "a doughnut is only one step above a rent rod"
Perhaps you misunderstand the issue.
We are talking about an animal that attacks without provocation. It is a biological entity that decides on its own when, and who/what it will attack.
There is no valid reason for pit bulls, dogs designed to be aggressive, to attach unprovoked, to exist.
I understand the issue just fine, i just disagree with your assessment that every pitbull is a ticking time bomb that will eventually attack without provocation.
The number of attacks are significantly low when you consider the total number of pit bulls in the US, and pits are most definitely not the only breed that is responsible for attacks. I feel pretty certain that there have been attacks or bitings by just about every breed known to man.
Furthermore, if the owners had been in control of their dogs, no matter what breed, than they wouldn't have had the opportunity to attack in the first place.
And for the record, i have never owned a pit, i just believe it's the owners reponsibility.
Compare the number of human deaths each year caused by deer with the number caused by canine, i bet you'll be surprised.
Monster Dogs by the numbers 
