http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/breed-specific-legislation-bsl-faq/

HitsRus;1745039 wrote:Just thought you like to see some history since you seem to be ignorant. You can see that pit bulls were a non factor until the turn of the century when they became popular and more numerous, partly because people began calling certain breeds and mixes "pit bulls". It is the reason dogs called "pit bulls" are blamed in fatal dog bite statistics.

LOL gosh a ruddies. so pits got be more popular, brought into more peoples home and more people died from it. Look at the increase in number of deaths a year since the turn of the century. And that increase is deaths from pit attack.

HitsRus;1745040 wrote:http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/breed-specific-legislation-bsl-faq/

gosh a ruddies again and again on number of dog bites. It is not the number of times pits bite compared to other type dogs, it is that when they attack it is more likely to be deadly. They are killers.

I think you need to read the part about breed specific legislation and take note of the professional organizations who do not support it and the reasons why. You also need to read the part of and definition of what constitutes a pit bull.

All these organizations have the point of view, there are no bad dogs, just bad owners. In a way they are right, dogs are not bad. That is a moral judgement and not applicable to a dog. What Pits are is dangerous. And again they keep repeating the idea that the number of dog bites is the measurement of the problem. It is not. It is a question of quality not quantity. Pits do not bite more than other dogs, but their bites are much more likely to kill. And even when we widen the definition of what a pit is, they are still the most dangerous type dog.<o></o>

Q: Does BSL reduce dog bites?


A: No. BSL has not succeeded in reducing dog bite-related injuries wherever in the world it has been enacted.


&#8226; An analysis published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association explains one reason that BSL could not be expected to work even if particular breeds could be identified as high risk. The authors calculated the absurdly large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds who would have to be completely removed from a community in order to prevent even one serious dog bite-related injury. For example, in order to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to remove more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted group. To prevent a second hospitalization, double that number.[3]


&#8226; Denver, CO enacted a breed-specific ban in 1989. Citizens of Denver continue to suffer a higher rate of hospitalization from dog bite-related injuries after the ban, than the citizens of breed-neutral Colorado counties.[4]
- See more at: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/breed-specific-legislation-bsl-faq/#.dpuf

Gosh a ruddies, you again misstate the problem, it is not number of dog bites, it is deadly effect of bites by one particular type of dog. As Pit Bulls were became increasingly popular in the late 1990s and into the 21st Century, the number of dog bite related fatalities tripled and quadrupled over what we found in earlier year. And those increased death can be ascribed to that killer type dog, the pit. This boy would be alive today if his community had a ban on pits.

Wattaya get when you cross a St Bernard with a Pit Bull?

A a dog that saves you from an avalanche then kills you.

The authors calculated the absurdly large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds who would have to be completely removed from a community in order to prevent even one serious dog bite-related injury

&#8226; Denver, CO enacted a breed-specific ban in 1989. Citizens of Denver continue to suffer a higher rate of hospitalization from dog bite-related injuries after the ban, than the citizens of breed-neutral Colorado counties.[4]
- See more at: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil...bsl-faq/#.dpuf

What part of that don't you understand?
Your cherry picked stats, and inferences don't hold up to scientific studies.

HitsRus;1745104 wrote:What part of that don't you understand?
Your cherry picked stats, and inferences don't hold up to scientific studies.

gosh a ruddies I obviously set a higher value on human life than you do. It is no statistical trick to say that dog bite fatalities have increased, that most of those increased deaths are tied to pits. While you seem to feel that it is worth the sacrifice, I don't. When a problem in a product leads to some human deaths, there is a recall. Pits need recalled. The folks you cite like the National Canine Research Council, show their hypocrisy and disregard for human life. In their own list of factors contributing to dog bite injuries, No. 2 on their list, showing up in 85.2% of the cases, was the animal not being neutered or spayed. Yet they oppose laws to spay or neuter Pits. A complete disregard for human safety.

It is no statistical trick to say that dog bite fatalities have increased, that most of those increased deaths are tied to pits. While you seem to feel that it is worth the sacrifice, I don't

Multiple studies show that is false.

Yet they oppose laws to spay or neuter Pits. A complete disregard for human safety.

Show me that statement.

Current Breed Specific ordinances have proven ineffective in Topeka or the number of dog bites. Breed Specific Legislation, i.e. targeting a particular breed such as American Pit Bull Terriers, has generally been discredited in actual experience of cities, professionals and academic research as being both ineffective and expensive.&#8221; &#8212; City Attorney&#8217;s Office, Topeka, Kan.

gosh a ruddies, bull
We have the opinions of those with a philosophical or monetary interest in preventing action against a type of dog, that happens to be a killer.
What is not based on prejudice or self interest are the basic facts. Since Pit Bulls have become popular the number of dog bite fatalities has increased three or more fold.
We have the original report of these fatalities from people with no self interest in a particular dog type, identifying the killers. These people are the neighbors and families of the victims and owners. Often attacks happen within owners' families and even to the owner themselves. These people provide an honest identification of dogs that they often have known for years. These reports are the most valid.

What grade level did you reach in your education? Your reading comprehension skills seem kind of low. Re-read the bold part of my last post. Animal, non animal, legal, law enforcement, scientific studies all conclude that breed specific legislation is useless and ineffective in real world experiences in multiple places and cities.

These are not opinions, these are facts and are not merely based on anecdotal evidence.

gosh a ruddies, they are opinions and failed ones by these self serving groups. dog bite fatalities increase as they oppose the one piece of legislation that would do the most to save lives, a national ban on pit bulls.
All these witnesses to the acts and to the animals provide accounts. They give overwhelming evidence of what type dog is responsible for the increasing number of deaths. Some folks place pit bull>humans. I don't

So ALL these groups are self serving? That sir, is your opinion, and that is wrong. Everything that you allege is has been discredited.

gosh a ruddies
look back in the 1990s dog bite fatalities were in the single digits, now they are nearly 4 times that high. What is the changed variable, more pit bulls in the dog population.
how do we know, from the first hand reports by people who really know the dogs involved, and with no reason to lie about it as opposed to those financial or philosophically opposed to breed specific laws.

What is the changed variable, more pit bulls in the dog population.

Nope.... there are multiple recurring factors related to irresponsible dog ownership. Do yourself a favor and get educated.

HitsRus;1745174 wrote:Nope.... there are multiple recurring factors related to irresponsible dog ownership. Do yourself a favor and get educated.

LOL, gosh a ruddies, all those factors have been present among dog owners for a long, long time. What is new, pits in large numbers in communities and then the deaths rise.

No, you're wrong and multiple studies, organizations, the CDC and the White House say so.

no, they can spin it anyway they want to try to protect the pits, you and they for whatever reason refuse to see and obvious truth. Dog bite fatalities have at least tripled in 20years. The obvious factor based on first hand accounts is pit bulls, whose population has increased.

"Gosh a ruddies", everybody is wrong except you.

HitsRus;1745196 wrote:"Gosh a ruddies", everybody is wrong except you.

gosh a ruddies, others who agree with my position are right. They are not blinded by financial interest or ideology. They realize the deadly danger to children and oldsters from pits.

What others?... besides anti pit groups and their misconceptions? No scientific studies back them up. What empirical evidence exists that breed specific legislation actually does anything except cost taxpayers money?....see Denver...etc.etc.

Moreover, your assertion that their is some financial interest at play in anti BSL is ludicrous, especially when the main proponent of pit bull bans is an attorney who is making a ton of cash off of it.

Even if you were right (which you are not) the rarity of a dog bite fatality in comparison to the number of dog bites is less than 1 in 100,000. 5 times as many babies die in their bath tubs, 30 times as many children die in their home swimming pools. In all these cases, and dogs are no exception, it is the negligence of a human that is the cause.

gosh a ruddies, talk about weasel words. Who backs it "only" anti pit bull groups, right and all the groups that support it are "only" pro pit bull groups.
Dog association and vets have a financial interest.
Denver with a ban had no death from pit bull attacks, that is a success.
if we found one type of baby tub that made up a small percentage of baby tubs produced the majority of deaths, if one type of pool that made up a small percentage produced the large majority of children's death, I would hope they were banned. Gosh the corvair and the pinto left us because they were deadly.

How sad your understanding of statistics...

Denver with a ban had no death from pit bull attacks, that is a success.

Since the odds that they would have a dog bite related fatality at all, ban or not, is about 18 to 1.....:RpS_lol:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/denver-pit-bull-ban-leads_n_826557.html
This illustrates a statistic that was shown in studies, that in 81% of dog bite cases, the breed of the dog was mis-identified by eyewitnesses.