Talk:Pit bull/Archive 2

message: This is an interesting report  on what breeds killed people over a 20-year period in the U.S.  It does show that "pit bull types" and "rottweiler types" caused 2/3 of the deaths, but it also raises some of the same questions about over-reporting deaths by certain breeds because the breeds have a reputation of being viscious, when in fact the breed might not be what was indicated (or not known), for example in the case of mixed breed dogs.  The study didn't even include a third of the deaths because the breed couldn't be identified.  
I thought it was also interesting that Saint Bernards and Great Danes, which in my experience (and by reputation) are quite gentle animals, were among the high numbers of caused deaths--and there's even one by Cocker Spaniel (which are NOT in my experience gentle animals).  Anyway, the study comes out saying that breed-specific regulation is a bunch of hooey and regulating behavior would be a much more effective thing to do.  But read the report yourself.   Elf | Talk 21:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's another interesting one related to "what is a pit bull anyway"--it's a find-the-pit-bull quiz!  For those of us who are very familiar with many breeds, it's not too hard to tell. But think about your average person who's trying to identify what kind of dog bit him--  Find the pit bull.  Elf | Talk 21:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was, too, hard!  Or I'm a dunce--had to blow up a couple of pictures just to see the dogs clearly.  Breed-specific legislation is a lot of hooey--just ask 'em over in Queensland, Australia, where they've got pit bull 'guidelines' that a whole range of breeds fit into!  It's ridiculous.Quill 00:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, I'm a pit-owner and pit-lover, and I was wrong the first two times! (those were the Dogo Argentino and the Presa Canario, not being able to tell relative size made it a bit harder for me). But it proves a point, there were a lot of dogs on that page that look like pit bulls, that aren't at all. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: RJ: Going by fatility numbers alone gives far from a complete picture too.  Look at the numbers about the number of dog bite injuries in the US. 368,245 persons were treated in U.S. hospitals for nonfatal dog bites in 2001, and 2% of the U.S. population are attacked by dogs per year.  They are much larger numbers.  If it turned out that 50% of pit bulls had bitten a human even if only 0.047% had ever killed someone, that's still a problem.  Unfortunately I can't seem to locate dog bite/non-fatal injury numbers broken down by breed, only in aggregate. Gigs 16:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Research on dog-induced fatalities in the U.S.

message: Not at all sure why this article rates a doesn-not-cite-references message.  Considering how many sources and external links are listed and how poor some other Wikipedia articles are...? Quill 07:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: In this article, Staffordshire Bull Terriers are listed as pit bulls, but the staffie article states in two places that they are not.  I'm not a pit bull expert; needs someone who knows to clarify. 
Quill 07:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically staffies aren't pit bulls, since pit bulls are considered to be an American creation, but becuase staffies look like smaller, stockier APBT's, many people still refer to them as "pit bulls'. I wanted to fix this in the article, but wasn't sure exactly how to work it in... Lachatdelarue (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The article has the following, which doesn't make sense:
:"Of the 199 dog-attack fatalities in the USA between 1979 and 1996, dogs identified as pit bulls were responsible for 60 attacks—just under a third. The next most-dangerous group was Rottweilers, responsible for 29 attacks (statistics from the CDC). These statistics are tainted by the fact that the breed recorded as responsible for the attack is obtained from the report of the person attacked, and many people incorrectly identify other kinds of dogs (such as boxers) as pit bulls."
Now it refers to "the report of the person attacked".   Umm, we're talking about fatalities.  That means the person attacked is dead.  They don't report anything.  Even when talking about attacks that leave surviving witnesses, mis-identification of breed can happen in both directions.  I doubt all pit bull owners, upon having their dog just kill somebody, make a point of ensuring the breed is identified correctly.  And I'm sure if somebody's dog attacked somebody and it wasn't a pit bull (but called a pit bull), they would want to clarify that it's not.  Owning a viscious breed of animal increases your liability, and it's in your interest to not be accused of knowingly having such a breed.  As the victim is dead, the killer's owner is the person most likely to influence any reporting.  Anyway, my basic point is that it's wrong to suggest the pit bull percentage is too high or low.  We just don't know.  --rob 13:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. I might have written that section earlier--don't remember clearly. But clearly I or someone was confusing a couple of sources of info. It is usually true that Dead men tell no tales.  Elf | Talk 22:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the editor probably took the two points from the same CDC source, which is understandable.  Ironically, the researchers used fatality statistics, instead of non-fatal injuries, for the very reason, that they wished to avoid the problem of misidentification that exists with survivors.  Essentially, they ignored over 99% of Pit Bull attacks, to avoid the misidentification issues.  But, now the article mentions both the fatalities, and separately the problem of misdentification of pit bulls.  So, it should be ok now.   --rob 22:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead people having trouble identifying breed that killed them. 

message: At the time that I put the warning on the article, it described pit bulls as "sweet and loveable animals", which was clearly not an appropriate point of view. Why oh why a state would outlaw a "sweet and loveable" animal because it was known for being violent is beyond me. Now it has a point of view that's bias to a completely opposite degree. Almost the entire article needs to be rewritten to only provide facts and not opinions. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, for God's sake. At the very least, the "Positive Press" section should be expanded. --agf
:agf, it doesn't seem to me that the bias is the opposite way now.  I have just now committed some NPOV edits that remove some emotional appeals and attempt to detach the article from the debate further.  Let me know what you think.  Remember "Fair and Balanced" might make for good ratings for FOX news, but we aren't aiming for ratings, we want to report facts, not provide a forum for pundits to make their cases. Gigs 00:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reason I put an NPOV warning on this article 

message: I did not read the comments posted by others so if this one happens to be similar to other posts, it is not intentional. I am an animal lover and I especially love dogs and I cannot understand the bad press that any dog with the classification "pit bull." The fact of the matter is the quantity of these attacks are highly exaggerated to make people believe they happen on a regular basis, similar to shark attacks when in fact there is probably only a handful of attacks each year if that many. More people die from being struck by lightning than attacks by these dogs and shark bites combined. Furthermore, nobody seems to take into account how the animal that supposedly attacked a person was treated. It is a fact that most of the pit bulls that have attacked or killed a human were in fact abused, neglected or raised in such a brutal fashion (usually for fighting) that its no wonder the animal attacked, having a rough backround would leave it bitter with humans and quite frankly not knowing anything else. However no one seems to take in account the dog's backround of how it was raised; its the dog's fault because it was born, it’s the dog‘s fault because the owner takes advantage of the dog‘s reputation for their usually illegal projects. This scenario is not much different than a child who's parent neglect or abuse them that they tend to be rather bitter and have a negative point of view of the world based on his/her experiences or they turn to a life of crime whether its drug use, theft or in some cases murder sometimes even mass murder. For some reason it appears that when an animal (any animal) attacks a human despite being mentally inferior to humans working solely on instinct that SOMEHOW upon killing a human it is supposed to know better and a result the animal is usually destroyed along with many others for being that species. If animals could hold grudges like that against us for every time we hunted or killed one of them, humans would have probably been extinct a long time ago. Anyways I kind of drifted off topic. Nobody seems to seems to realize the fact that if the dog is raised and treated a certain ways that its going to come out a certain way just like a person would. THE AKC highly recommends the breed and I think I can safely say they have a high say and actually know the facts from myths. There is a myth that a pit bull has a bite of 30,000 PSI. That has got to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. A crocodile who has one of the strongest bites in the animal kingdom has an average bite of 3,000 PSI and you are going to convince me that an 85 lb dog can bite harder than a 2,000 lb crocodile? I don’t think so. I’ve seen too many families own a pit bull who treat their animal properly and the animal is more gentle than you can imagine to just sit by and watch this dog be unjustly prosecuted usually based on limited or ignored facts and highly exaggerated myths. The media, just like any other problem s in this world take something that maybe accounts for 1% of a whole and flip it around to where the negative image supposedly accounts for nearly 100% of the whole. A perfect example of  how the statistics are flipped around would be the issue of teens who supposedly kill because of watching a movie or playing a game when 99% of young people who may be exposed to violence/sex in entertainment turn into law biding citizens despite the media tries so hard to portray the opposite and its unfair that a law biding society has to yield because maybe the 1% will take something the wrong way and do something bad. This is a great comparison to the position the pit bull is in; how the whole breed suffers an exaggerated and pretty much false reputation for incidents that portray to less than 1% of the pit bull population. Even those who are responsible for injuring or even killing someone I fail to understand how that can possibly reflect then tire breed. Its like saying if a white man murders someone for no apparent reason that all white men are potential killers based on that one incident. But we do categorize white men based on that incident because we know that would be flat out ludicrous. So why do we do it to animals? Pit bulls are not bad dogs. If raised and trained properly they are the ideal household pet a fact again also acknowledged by the AKC who again knows more about dog breeds than just about anyone else on the planet. I have shared this viewpoint with numerous people and its amazing the folks with two brain cells in between them seem to acknowledge the facts while the ignorant who honestly cannot back up their position with facts or even an argument of any kind besides saying “because”. Thank you for reading this I apologize for the long length and possibly going off topic once or twice in order to make some comparisons. I just hope some folks will read what I wrote and maybe learn something about this breed that may allow them to shift their viewpoint (This section contributed by user 205.246.157.238.)
Amen! I'm willing to guess that of the people who comment on what an awful and dangerous breed pit bulls are, 95% have probably had little to no personal experience with these wonderful, loyal, and loving dogs. I find it amazing how many people are willing to falsely chastise and villify this breed; I guess our only recourse, as Pit-bull "advocates" is to spread the truth about this breed; the truth being, that if raised properly, a pit-bull is one of the most affectionate, well- behaved canines.  Furthermore, the character assassination of this breed is reminiscent of those who have said that certain ethnicities/races of people are innately bad, which of course is total nonsense. The same is true for pit-bulls. Whoermaster 23:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pit Bulls Have a Highly Exaggerated and Undeserved Reputation 

message: It looks to me that the recent set of edits are very good edits.  This article is become more and more factual and encyclopedic.  Regardless of the personal feelings of the pro- or anti-pitbull people, if no one steps up to challenge specific facts or statements then I don't see why this article should stay classified as totally disputed. Gigs 18:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I was thinking the same thing earlier tonight. OhnoitsJamieTalk 07:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Then again, Bull Terrier refers to a specific breed that's significantly different from an American Pit Bull.  How about "bully breed"? That's seems to be a more accepted term which typically includes the American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Agentine Dogo (among others). OhnoitsJamieTalk 19:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally Disputed?!? 

message: "A pit bull is a member of any of a number of breeds of dogs developed from the Old English Bulldog. Breeds recognized as pit bulls include the American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier, although the name is also often used to refer to other breeds of similar characteristics, such as the American Bulldog and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and mixed breeds that include any of these breeds."
This is incorrect in relation to the American Bulldog. Pit bull is a group of dogs that includes the American Staffordshire Terrier, Stafforshire Bull Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier. Notice these are all Terriers. The American Bulldog is not a "pit bull" because it does not contain any Terrier, it is a Bulldog. You can confer with any American Bulldog Breeders, Registries and Groups and you will soon find that the American Bulldog is considered a Bulldog, not a Terrier and not a "pit bull".
You answered your question in the paragraph. "although the name is also often used to refer to other breeds of similar characteristics." It's not saying that the American Bulldog is always a "pit bull." It just says it has similar characteristics which give it a "pit bull" look. There are about 25 breeds that can fall into a "pit bull" category at anytime, some include the Dogo Argentino, the Presa Canario, and the Cane Corso. They are not technically a "pit bull" but they share similar characteristics with "pit bull" types. --RJ
: Well-stated. My sister-in-law has one, and it looks very similar to a APBT (except that it's quite a bit larger). Apparently some folks object to calling those 25 or so breeds "bully breeds," but most of those dogs do have some common lineage. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do you have american bulldog listed as a pitbull, when it is not? 

message: Looks like someone is trying to edit pro-pit bias back into this article.  I had put a caveat a while back that the ATTS testing had little to do with overall breed agression, testing dogs on tasks like walking on thin planks and unsteady surfaces, with only one category even touching on agression.  This person has edited misleading ATTS statistics back into the article, and my text has been lost over many edits.  
To avoid an edit war I ask another Wikipedian to step in on this particular subsection regarding ATTS testing, please check out the ATTS web page and come to your own conclusions about how the data should be presented, if at all.  Another user has questioned whether the ATTS only exists as a shill organization to promote the pit-bull breed, I have not seen evidence of this but it may be something to investigate to see if a source can be found to support that assertion. Gigs 00:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits of 207.200.116.133 Re: ATTS testing 

message: Equating ownership of so-called Pit Bulls with ownership of guns is a frivolous use of the sanctity of the Constitution.  Many Americans, I would think, agree that it is acceptable to 'own' a gun.  Yet, I believe these same people would suggest that owning a gun and carrying a gun while walking down the street are two different things.  Also, a gun does not, in and of itself, have mobility, while a dog certainly does.  You can rest assured that a gun will not leap over a fence or dash out the front door and hurt you.  Also, while most Americans would agree that owning a gun is fine, owning a machine gun is not.  So, a pistol is not a machine gun and a Pomeranian is not a Pit Bull.
Now, in fairness, any dog can bite.  But, large dogs bite harder and are more of a problem in that way.  Specifically, the dogs referred by most people as 'Pit Bulls' were bred to be strong and have powerful bites.  So, even though if properly trained they can be great pets and wouldn't hurt a fly, improper training and irresponsible owners cast a pall on the entire breed.
So, I would agree to a ban on any animal that the public perceives as a threat.  Lions, Bears, Rattlesnakes shouldn't be allowed to be walked down the street.  Properly trained they may be fine, but who can guarantee to me that my child is approaching an animal that has been 'properly' trained.
There should be a grandfather clause in that current owners can keep their dogs, but that breeding and importation stops.
Finally, yes, Wikipedia has an article on hypocrisy, but that is an incorrect use of the term.
--69.196.171.182 13:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: A Bit of Common Sense