Suggesting that all pit bulls are all evil and out of control is akin to suggesting certain human races are evil and out of control.
I used to live with a staffordshire terrier that was one of the sweetest dogs I've ever known. I also watched the akita that I lived with at that same time kill a cat without hesitation.
"It's all just from bad dog owners!"
I'd like to see the chart for attacks requiring hospitalization and disfigured for life. I think you'd really see a runaway there."It's all just from bad dog owners!"
You understand these stats are skewed...right? How about find a list of breeds most often trained for fighting. It'll put your list into perspective.
What he's saying is cheap, untrained Pitt bulls are all over the place vs dogs like a German Sheppard that are expensive to buy. Given that, (and the tendency for the poorer owners not training/socializing them) Pitt bull's will always have the worst of stats.Is it skewed enough to invalidate the point? If not, what is your point exactly?
Yes it is.Is it skewed enough to invalidate the point? If not, what is your point exactly?
You understand these stats are skewed...right? How about find a list of breeds most often trained for fighting. It'll put your list into perspective.
Correct, among other uses. Animals (back then anyway) were culled if they showed human aggression.[
They are not just raised to fight they were bread to fight for hundreds of years.
As were many other breeds.[
They are not just raised to fight they were bread to fight for hundreds of years.
What solution do you propose to correct the stats listed in that chart?As were many other breeds.
Education.What solution do you propose to correct the stats listed in that chart?
Yea, I had seen that before, funny as hell, these things are close to indestructible.
Its a mystery to me how some people cant add up the facts... Ill try again, even IF, why does it matter?Yes it is.
phhhhht!! I need my support humpback whale.Does this mean that my comfort giraffe cannot fly with me anymore?
Does this mean that my comfort giraffe cannot fly with me anymore?
So much for the no comfort animal left behind policy..... Personally I believe that all comfort animals should be of the stuffed variety, aka teddy bears, so nobody gets offended or bitten. This business has gotten out of hand.You can if you fly air Barnum or air Noah.
The other companies won't stick their neck out for you
Education.
So much for the no comfort animal left behind policy..... Personally I believe that all comfort animals should be of the stuffed variety, aka teddy bears, so nobody gets offended or bitten. This business has gotten out of hand.
If live animals are going to be permitted then there should be some realistic breed and size limits so they can remain in their owners laps during a flight without infringing on the passenger next to them.
Where are all of the 2A supporters at now? Remember kids, a well regulated aircraft being necessary to the security of good flight, the right of the passenger to sit undisturbed shall not be infringed.
I think its a bit out of hand, and it's the airlines right to not allow unlicensed service animals, aka emotional support animal, on the plane.
Animals to aid or overcome with physical conditions, like seeing eye dogs, should be allowed. Those pets go thru extensive training to be around the general population.
For reference, I hate flying, it causes great anxiety. I dont do it often, but when I do I may be inclined to toss back a couple Dramamine (no alcohol) to help.
Unlike humans, dogs have been bred over many, many generations for specific traits. Pointers are bred to point, herders are bred to herd and terriers are bred to dig, etc. Feel free to try and argue this isn't true. Humans haven't been bred for specific traits, and even if someone tried it would be non-viable because of how long it takes for a new generation to be born. Dogs can start having puppies in under two years, humans take far longer. Even if we assume people always have kids at age 16, that's still less than ten full generations from the emancipation proclamation to now.
Just because a dog is a pitt doesn't mean it's dangerous, but the breed causes a frightfully high percentage of fatal dog attacks compared to their small size in the dog population. Which is probably because they were bred for fighting (and no, they're not 'nanny dogs').
Violent interactions between humans and canines have been studied by the U.S. government,[30] notably the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),[31] as well as academic veterinary researchers.[1] The interpretation of these studies, breed identification and relevance[32] issues, and variable circumstances have given rise to intense controversy.[33][34][35]
In a 2014 literature review of dog bite studies, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) states that breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites.[36] Controlled studies have not identified pit bulls as disproportionately dangerous. Pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified with cases involving very severe injuries or fatalities than other breeds, but the review suggests this may relate to the popularity of the breed, noting that sled dogs, such as Siberian Huskies, were involved in a majority of fatal dog attacks in some areas of Canada.[1]