Why I'll never own a Pit Bull

[culero]

Virgil, here's another one:

On November 13, a 14-year-old boy residing in Hidalgo County, Texas, was evaluated in a local ED for sore throat and dyspnea. Upper respiratory infection was suspected, and he was released with a prescription for amoxicillin. On November 14, his family noted changes in behavior (alternating hyperactivity and withdrawal). Following an episode of apparent seizure but no loss of consciousness, he was transported to his physician's office and then to the ED where he was admitted for acute central nervous system deterioration.

On admission, he was hyperventilating, incoherent, and hallucinating, and he required suctioning for oral secretions; physical examination findings included fever (104 F {40 C}), tachycardia, and hypotension (blood pressure: 96/46 mm Hg). He was transferred to an intensive-care unit where he was intubated and pharmacologically paralyzed.

The primary diagnosis was meningitis, but encephalitis and brain abscess also were considered; treatment included cefotaxime sodium, metronidazole, and acyclovir. Because of his rapidly deteriorating clinical status, on November 14 he was transferred to a tertiary-care facility where fluctuating fever and cardiovascular instability necessitated treatment with both vasopressors and dilators. On November 16, massive rhabdomyolysis occurred (serum creatinine phosphokinase: 69,000 international units {IU}/L {normal: 12-70 IU/L}), and he developed renal failure requiring dialysis. On November 23, rabies was suspected, and serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) were obtained for antibody testing; saliva and a skin biopsy specimen from the nape of the neck also were obtained. The patient died on November 27.

Although the serum and CSF specimens were negative for evidence of rabies, a postmortem skin biopsy specimen (obtained November 28) and saliva samples (obtained November 30) were both positive for rabies virus at state laboratories and CDC. Nucleotide sequence analysis at CDC identified a rabies virus variant associated with Texas coyote/border dogs.

This happened about 10 miles from my house. Note the bit I placed in bold.

Again, its not about being cruel or kill-happy. I love dogs, heck you should note that I am *not* one of the crowd demonizing pitt bulls (even though they and dogfighting are common here, I like pit bulls and don't think they are "bad" at all). I just want to minimize my family's exposure.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Never said you or your methodology were wrong. Was merely commenting on the fact that the rabies deaths in humans appeared to be under reported.

Also, note that both cases you posted went undiagnosed until long after the onset of the disease, leading one to question the method of exposure or infection.

Again, having grown up in a rural area, and having been forced to deal dogs as a threat to humans and livestock, I'm not saying that killing them is unnecessary. I've been forced to do the same. It was not terribly rare, either.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
So, I take it you wouldn't see the harm in someone deciding that YOUR pet MUST be spayed or neutered because THEY feel THAT breed has a few examples that are dangerous.

Considering the growing alternative, being removal of your pet across some line, or its extermination, yes, I'd be ok with it.  

But what breed is next, after pit bulls? Honestly, a few months back, a local woman was killed by two Great Pyranees. Wasn't the first time for that breed either. Akitas? German Shepherds? Dobermans? So, where do you draw the line?

I'd say drawing the line at dogs breed to fight is perfectly reasonable, considering having them fight is completely inhumane, and betting they'll supress that instinct their whole lives is a large gamble.

You don't see the harm in making an entire breed extinct, over the poor behavior of a few examples. That's a very interesting position. It has all sorts of possibilities.

No offense, but this seems like a typical "DARE" response right here.  "Oh, little Johnny, if you try that pot, you'll turn into a crackpotato."  It does have all sorts of possibilities.  Not many of them are particularly likely.  No one who advocates letting a breed of dogs notoriously well-known for killing people disappear is going to seriously say that Cocker Spaniel's should go too for giving someone stitches now and then.

I think Lazs has the best solution, though.  One that will sit real nice with all of you who say "It's the owner, not the breed."  Your dog attacks or kills an innocent person, it's like you did the mauling.  You go to jail for the exact time you would have had you used your own knife.

Defenses of "Oh, he was such a nice family dog I don't know what happened" aren't going to fly anymore than "Oh, he was such a good father, something just snapped."

So if you want to have a breed that can kill somebody, you'd better be damn sure that you've got it under control.  If enforced, I'm not too sure some of you guys harping on how great the breed is will be so eager to buy another one again, but that's just me.

Make it fair.  All dog breeds included.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Responsible owners and breeders of the large breed dogs, especially the working breeds, are diametrically opposed to dog fighting, and breeding/raising dogs with the intent of creating mean or vicious animals.

The problem is GREED. Unscrupulous breeders (the vast majority of whom are NOT professional high quality breeders, but rather opportunists looking to make a profit) are breeding animals improperly, and selling them to people who have no business owning a dog, never mind a large breed working dog. The way you can tell it is the scumbag breeders and NOT the responsible owners and breeders is the general health of the breed. When you get the fools involved, they do not care what dogs they breed, or how they do it, they just crank out puppies. You end up with a large quantity of dogs with genetic health issues like bad hips, weak hearts, mental retardation, sterility, and all the other problems resulting from inbreeding or 'linear" breeding. No responsible breeder will breed a dog known to have ANY genetic predisposition for ANY health issue. The responsible breeders do it because they LOVE the breed and want only the best dogs, and only the best for the breed.

And once again, we have the actions of a very few tainting the whole. I happen to own Rottweilers, and NONE of the owners/breeders I know, and I know a BUNCH, would trade their dogs for the next "in" breed or meaner animals. Having been involved in the rescue of some of them from people who should NEVER own ANY dog I can tell you the dogs became too popular, and like anything else, stupid foolish people became involved. The same exact thing happened to German Shepherds (I like German Shepherds) and to Dobermans before. Fortunately, the "new" and "shine" has worn off of the Rottweilers, and their popularity has begun to wane. Hopefully, it will again reach a point where the dogs will not end up in the hands of fools as they have recently.

So what we have here is some dogs and some breeds being persecuted rather than the low life humans involved being held RESPONSIBLE. Not surprising, considering we live in a time where personal responsibility is mostly non existent.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by culero
Tell that to the people in my area who have died from rabies because they were bitten by infected stray dogs. Its a serious problem in south Texas. You may wish to have your family exposed, but I do not.

Care to share some data?
In an hour of looking I havent been able to find a single peice that supports your claim.

In fact. domesticated animal types seem to be the least of your worries.
As the most recent data I was able to find showed that less then 6% of rabies cases were found in domesticated animal types or all kinds in the entire state of Texass.
And that number has been steadily on the decline
One would have to conclude that the percentage of dogs would be less.
By contrast Nationally largest rabies problem comes from Bats,Foxes Racoons and Skunks. And in Texas in particular its primarily Bats and Fox

The most updated data I've ben able to find showed that in a 14 year span between 1990 and 2004 a whole 47 cases of human death by rabies  (46 in the USA mainland 1 in Puerto Rico) in the entire country
thats less then 4 per year in the entire USA (3.3571428 to be Spock like)

As for Texas itself. It seems the last "epedemic" in Texas was in the early 90s (1994 to be exact)
And according to the CDC the last reported case of rabies in a human was
On May 9, 2006
And that was caused by a bat.

If as you say rabies is a serious problem in your area. You might want to notify both your state government and the Center for Disease Control. Because neither of them seem to know about it.

If you can provide and real data proving your case I'll accept it. And admit it

If not I can only conlude you are more then likely either falling victim to media hype. Or shooting dogs not because they are a potential rabies danger or even a danger at all. (the numbers show they arent)
but simply because you can.

in which case I will stand by my original comment

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I can tell you, having "known" him for years, Culero is no indiscriminate killer of animals.

Now, he MAY have some less than perfect information or data, but if he does, he came by it honest, looking for the truth.

There's no need to get testy here, it isn't called for.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Interesting. The local health agencies must not be reporting those human rabies deaths.  

they are.
You just have to go back 20+ years to find them LOL
The ones he is reporting

the first was in 1991
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00015547.htm

the second was in 1994

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/professional/MMWRtext/mmwr4414.htm

No offence culero
But I think your paranoia is a bit outdated, overhyped and directed at the wrong species

[-CodyC]

culero  I would do the same if i were you because i know the danger of strays in the country around livestock.  My dad lost a couple calves last year due to either strays or coyotes.  For him that is a quite a bit money lost from time invested into breeding and feeding them.  Unfortunately shooting strays in the country is necessary.

Drediock,i love dogs to death, but you should really be asking what good is a group of stray dogs in the country?  They are going to need to find a food source, if it's not your livestock then it's your garbage cans.  With stray groups there is no telling what they are capable of and it is best for all if they are put down.

[FiLtH]

All I know is if I had a kid killed by one, the dog would be destroyed, preferably with a blow torch and a pair of pliers, and the owner would find some suffering as well.

[Vudak]

You know, Virgil, I get what you're saying and I'm not saying it's not the owners fault (hell, people could own Crocodiles and not have a problem if they were responsible enough), but I will say:

I live in a town with no sheep, yet Border Collies still herd;

I live in a town with no weasles, yet Jack Russels still burrow;

Etc.

Maybe in fifty years of responsible breeding of the sweetest dogs by the honest professionals you speak of, and Pit Bulls wouldn't be a danger.

But right now, I think you're really reaching saying that the genetics of the breed have nothing to do with it.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Vudak
You know, Virgil, I think you're really reaching saying that the genetics of the breed have nothing to do with it.

I never said the genetics of the breed were irrelevant. Not once. You're really reaching trying to say that I did. I already said that fools and scumbags were breeding the dogs carelessly and without regard for the results at best, and at worst were intentionally creating bad animals.

However, not ALL examples of ANY of the breeds are affected by the actions of the fools and scumbags. SOME bloodlines are not affected AT ALL. The assumption that the entire breed is ruined, and lost beyond recovery, is ignorant at best, and for the most part foolish and arrogant.

[-CodyC]

Originally posted by Vudak
I live in a town with no sheep, yet Border Collies still herd;

I live in a town with no weasles, yet Jack Russels still burrow;

You're absolutely right, the best example that i can present is that my blue heeler has been raised as an inside dog her entire life and has never seen any kind of training in herding cattle.  When her and my pit run in the back yard or in the house she is usually nipping at her heels and pushing her against the fence or walls.  She has that natural herding instinct, all animals have some kind of instinct.  I just wish i could figure out what instincts my pit has, other than eating me out of house and home.

[Gunthr]

i apologize in advance to any of our friends here who own pit bulls.

pit bulls are extremely popular in Florida.  so i was able to make a rather bizarre observation:

i noticed that more often than not, i find that i dislike people who own pitbulls.  

 past that, all animals are unpredictable in new situations, surroundings or when exposed to new people, and particularly around children.  animals also change temperament as they age.  

i would never, ever own a pitbull for residential purposes.  beyond their breeding as fighting dogs, and reputation, i think there is bite data supporting the higher rate of bites and higher level of damage per bite incident for pitbulls.  not sure tho, but for me it doesn't matter. my mind is made up.  there are enough vicious attacks by pitbulls in Florida to convince me that i wouldn't have one.  they seem to have a penchant for ripping the faces off children.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I never said the genetics of the breed were irrelevant. Not once. You're really reaching trying to say that I did. I already said that fools and scumbags were breeding the dogs carelessly and without regard for the results at best, and at worst were intentionally creating bad animals.

Sorry, I seem to have gotten you mixed up with the people saying, "It's the owner, not the breed."  Ergo, the owner, not the genetics.  I can't imagine why I might have taken your comments that way

However, not ALL examples of ANY of the breeds are affected by the actions of the fools and scumbags. SOME bloodlines are not affected AT ALL. The assumption that the entire breed is ruined, and lost beyond recovery, is ignorant at best, and for the most part foolish and arrogant.

You're right.  But in this case, my foolish arrogance will save kids.  I can live with that.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Vudak
You know, Virgil, I get what you're saying and I'm not saying it's not the owners fault (hell, people could own Crocodiles and not have a problem if they were responsible enough), but I will say:

I live in a town with no sheep, yet Border Collies still herd;

I live in a town with no weasles, yet Jack Russels still burrow;

Etc.

Maybe in fifty years of responsible breeding of the sweetest dogs by the honest professionals you speak of, and Pit Bulls wouldn't be a danger.

But right now, I think you're really reaching saying that the genetics of the breed have nothing to do with it.

I would agree genetics certainly does have soemthign to do with it.

By and large I dont think Pits attack more then any other breed.
the problem is that when they do attack they tend to keep attacking and cause devistating damage because of their sheer jaw strength and tendancy to not let go.

"According to research by Karen Delise, the author of "Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics," 21 percent of the 431 fatal dog attacks between 1965 and 2001 were carried out by "pit bull and pit bull-type dogs."

But there is a more telling statistic in the research available on dog attacks, said Ledy VanKavage, an attorney with the ASPCA.

Some 95 percent of the attacks on humans come from dogs that have not been spayed or neutered, and 70 percent of the attacks were committed by unneutered males, she said.

"Legislators should look at the statistics and enact legislation to protect people from vicious dogs of any breed, whether it be Pomeranian or Rottweiler," VanKavage said. "
Some 95 percent of the attacks on humans come from dogs that have not been spayed or neutered, and 70 percent of the attacks were committed by unneutered males, she said.

"Legislators should look at the statistics and enact legislation to protect people from vicious dogs of any breed, whether it be Pomeranian or Rottweiler," VanKavage said.

Some 95 percent of the attacks on humans come from dogs that have not been spayed or neutered, and 70 percent of the attacks were committed by unneutered males, she said.

"Legislators should look at the statistics and enact legislation to protect people from vicious dogs of any breed, whether it be Pomeranian or Rottweiler," VanKavage said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=823394&page=1

"In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)  

The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)

Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.) "
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogsmostlikelytobite

now that has to do mostly with fatalities. Yes you are more likely to be killed by a Pit or a Rot.

but from the same site
"A survey by the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta ("CDC") concluded that dogs bite nearly 2% of the U.S. population -- more than 4.7 million people annually. (Sacks JJ, Kresnow M, Houston B. Dog bites: how big a problem? Injury Prev 1996;2:52-4.)

Almost 800,000 bites per year -- one out of every 6 -- are serious enough to require medical attention. (Weiss HB, Friedman D, Coben JH. Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emergency departments. JAMA 1998;279:51-53.)

Dog bites send nearly 368,000 victims to hospital emergency departments per year (1,008 per day). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Nonfatal Dog Bite�Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments � United States, 2001, MMWR 2003;52:605-610. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is published by the CDC.

16,476 dog bites to persons aged 16 years or greater were work related in 2001. (Ibid., Nonfatal Dog Bite�Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments � United States, 2001, MMWR 2003;52:608.

Every year 2,851 letter carriers are bitten. (US Postal Service.)"

Like I was saying The Pits, the Rots, Boxers,etc are more likely to cause significant damage just because of the sheer strength of the dog.

LOL I was actually attacked by one of my customers miniature poodle last week. (which are among the most viscious breed based on my experience.
Its just that because of their size. they arent much of a threat provided you know they are there LOL
It wasnt really a problem because all I had to do was step hold it down by my foot till it calmed down and the customer came downstairs and leashed it.
Was quite a comical site actually
I came inside to use the bathroom, and the dog (I have a cat thats larger) charged me and tried biting my leg (only got hold of he pants leg) Visciouly I might add. I shook the dog off and when he charged me again I placed my boot on his head and pinned him to the floor. Not real hard, just hard enough to hold him there.
Once he realised he couldnt go anywhere he just lay there till the owner came down and put him on a leash again. then he tried charging again

LOL Guess ya hadta see it ot appreciate it