47957
46202

Pitbulls, Eh?

The forum's Skid Road. DO NOT ENTER unless you're ready for a squabble.

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 9th, 2017, 6:10 pm

Merry wrote:Frankly, given the wide choice of breeds available if one wants to own a dog, I still don't understand why anybody would choose a breed that is known to have the highest incidence of attacks (and that's the pit bull).

Whether a particular pit bull is a "good" dog or not, one can't escape the fact that pit bulls are responsible for 50% of dog attacks on people. Which far surpasses the incidence of German shepherd attacks, so I don't understand your point Silverstarqueen.

Knowing that pit bulls have such a poor track record, I don't understand why anyone would want to take a chance with one, when there are so many other breeds to choose from.

Percentages are different site to site. There are more pitbulls than some other breeds so incidents will be higher and media attention focuses on that breed over others (misidentification is common). What would you rather? Chow Chow? Rottweiler? American Bulldog?
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43021
Likes: 933 posts
Liked in: 4822 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Nov 9th, 2017, 6:34 pm

Merry wrote:Frankly, given the wide choice of breeds available if one wants to own a dog, I still don't understand why anybody would choose a breed that is known to have the highest incidence of attacks (and that's the pit bull).

Whether a particular pit bull is a "good" dog or not, one can't escape the fact that pit bulls are responsible for 50% of dog attacks on people. Which far surpasses the incidence of German shepherd attacks, so I don't understand your point Silverstarqueen.

Knowing that pit bulls have such a poor track record, I don't understand why anyone would want to take a chance with one, when there are so many other breeds to choose from.


Ask your dog control officers which dogs are more often involved in attacks (hint it isn't pitbulls). So that 's why you don't understand my point. I have looked at the numbers, in areas which post them, pitbulls are not responsible for 50% of the attacks or bites serious enough to be reported. At least not in Canada. It might seem like they are because if there is a pitbull bite it is reported in an instant and re-reported on every newswire, often even before the breed is even confirmed, sometimes the breed is later found not to be a pitbull, when it was reported to be a pitt. When some other breed bites, the story sinks into obscurity very quickly if in fact it is reported at all. In Manitoba, they brought in a breed ban, and did a follow up study to see if there was a noticeable reduction in hospitalizations due to bites. There was no significant difference when you compared the before and after ban time-frames in a city like Winnipeg. They didn't even have a correlation to an increase or decrease in any particular breed and bites.
Prince George and Edmonton have dropped their BSL, because they did not see the desired drop in reported dog bites. Nor could Toronto show a drop in dog bites as a result of their BSL. So people continue to ignore all these results and they hype continues.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 7069
Likes: 646 posts
Liked in: 1737 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 7:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby 1669 » Nov 9th, 2017, 7:19 pm

"Statistics collected by the City of Edmonton reveal that American Staffordshire terriers — one of several breeds that are commonly known as pit bulls — were responsible for nearly 30 per cent of all reported fatal dog-on-dog attacks in the city between January 2013 and September 2017.

According to the city, there are approximately 1,848 dogs licensed as either American Staffordshire terrier or Staffordshire bull terrier, which equates to three per cent of the city's dog population.

"Staffordshire terriers are a small per cent of our population, so it's a very disproportionate number," Ward said.

"We shouldn't see them killing more than double the next highest breed, when there are so few of them in the city."

Of the nine fatal dog-on-dog attacks reported to date in 2017, American Staffordshire terriers were blamed for six.

Ward said the numbers spiked because restrictions on pit bulls in Edmonton were repealed in 2012."

"I do believe in animal rights but I don't know how you can say you're an animal advocate and strongly advocate for pit bulls because they are the very things that are killing so many pets," Ward said."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.4348090
1669
Guru
 
Posts: 5268
Likes: 1006 posts
Liked in: 433 posts
Joined: Nov 20th, 2013, 8:58 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Nov 9th, 2017, 8:10 pm

1669 wrote:"Statistics collected by the City of Edmonton reveal that American Staffordshire terriers — one of several breeds that are commonly known as pit bulls — were responsible for nearly 30 per cent of all reported fatal dog-on-dog attacks in the city between January 2013 and September 2017.

According to the city, there are approximately 1,848 dogs licensed as either American Staffordshire terrier or Staffordshire bull terrier, which equates to three per cent of the city's dog population.

"Staffordshire terriers are a small per cent of our population, so it's a very disproportionate number," Ward said.

"We shouldn't see them killing more than double the next highest breed, when there are so few of them in the city."

Of the nine fatal dog-on-dog attacks reported to date in 2017, American Staffordshire terriers were blamed for six.

Ward said the numbers spiked because restrictions on pit bulls in Edmonton were repealed in 2012."

"I do believe in animal rights but I don't know how you can say you're an animal advocate and strongly advocate for pit bulls because they are the very things that are killing so many pets," Ward said."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.4348090


"Pit bulls, huskies, German shepherds top list

During the past five years, more than a dozen different breeds — from pit bulls to border collies — were responsible for reported dog-on-dog attacks in Edmonton. But pit bulls, huskies and German shepherds were the top three worst offenders, respectively.

American Staffordshire terriers were responsible for for 23 of the 81 fatal dog-on-dog attacks reported between January 2013 and September 2017, according to city statistics.

Of the 31 fatal dog attacks reported in 2016, American Staffordshire terriers were listed as the worst offenders with nine fatal attacks, followed by unknown breeds at six and huskies at five. 9/31= 30%

Dog attacks on pets at five-year high in Edmonton
Huskies were blamed for the most attacks in 2015. There were a total of 13 fatal dog-on-dog attacks that year, and huskies were responsible for three. American Staffordshire terriers were responsible for two, and Labrador retrievers were blamed for two." 2/13= 15% (huskies 3/13=22%)

So pits were between 15% and 30% depending on year. Should huskies and German shepherds and their mixes also be banned if pits are banned?

"Kwantes notes that more than a dozen different breeds were responsible for fatal attacks in Edmonton. If bylaw restrictions must be instituted for dogs, then they should apply to all breeds."
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 7069
Likes: 646 posts
Liked in: 1737 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 7:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby 1669 » Nov 9th, 2017, 8:20 pm

According to the city, there are approximately 1,848 dogs licensed as either American Staffordshire terrier or Staffordshire bull terrier, which equates to three per cent of the city's dog population.

Of the nine fatal dog-on-dog attacks reported to date in 2017, American Staffordshire terriers were blamed for six.

kevcol99 likes this post.
1669
Guru
 
Posts: 5268
Likes: 1006 posts
Liked in: 433 posts
Joined: Nov 20th, 2013, 8:58 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 9th, 2017, 10:14 pm

1669 wrote:According to the city, there are approximately 1,848 dogs licensed as either American Staffordshire terrier or Staffordshire bull terrier, which equates to three per cent of the city's dog population.

Not all dogs are licenced which would mean the percentage is wrong.
Edmonton has long had relatively low levels of pet registration, so it can be hard to determine exactly how many dogs live in the city.
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43021
Likes: 933 posts
Liked in: 4822 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby 1669 » Nov 9th, 2017, 10:21 pm

"Of the nine fatal dog-on-dog attacks reported to date in 2017, American Staffordshire terriers were blamed for six."

66.66%

kevcol99 likes this post.
1669
Guru
 
Posts: 5268
Likes: 1006 posts
Liked in: 433 posts
Joined: Nov 20th, 2013, 8:58 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 9th, 2017, 10:35 pm

Year isn't over yet and the numbers don't add up.
Of the 31 fatal dog attacks reported in 2016, American Staffordshire terriers were listed as the worst offenders with nine fatal attacks, followed by unknown breeds at six and huskies at five.
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43021
Likes: 933 posts
Liked in: 4822 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Nov 9th, 2017, 10:57 pm

That means about 98% of the pitbulls were not involved in a fatal dog attack. So why ban them all?

In 2016 non-pitbulls were responsible for 22/31 dog fatalities, 60%. If it's worthwhile to ban a type of dog for 66% of the deaths in 2017, then might just as well put down the non-pits when they are killing 60%. Or there was a time when Retrievers were the biggest offenders of the dog bites in Calgary , good reason to put down all the Retrievers.
Last edited by Silverstarqueen on Nov 9th, 2017, 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 7069
Likes: 646 posts
Liked in: 1737 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 7:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby 1669 » Nov 9th, 2017, 10:59 pm

It's 2017 and 6 out of 9 fatal attacks are by pitbulls. That's 66.66%.
1669
Guru
 
Posts: 5268
Likes: 1006 posts
Liked in: 433 posts
Joined: Nov 20th, 2013, 8:58 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 9th, 2017, 11:02 pm

1669 wrote:It's 2017 and 6 out of 9 fatal attacks are by pitbulls. That's 66.66%.

Repeating yourself doesn't make the numbers correct. If one set of statistics are wrong, I'll question the rest.
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43021
Likes: 933 posts
Liked in: 4822 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 9th, 2017, 11:03 pm

Silverstarqueen wrote:That means about 98% of the pitbulls were not involved in a fatal dog attack. So why ban them all?

Boxers and border collies were also involved in attacks - they would need to be added to the list.
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43021
Likes: 933 posts
Liked in: 4822 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby 1669 » Nov 9th, 2017, 11:08 pm

The numbers are from the city of Edmonton.

6 out of 9 = 66.66%. Who can question that.

Supporters can obfuscate all they like, it doesn't change the stats.
1669
Guru
 
Posts: 5268
Likes: 1006 posts
Liked in: 433 posts
Joined: Nov 20th, 2013, 8:58 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 9th, 2017, 11:10 pm

If the numbers don't add up, then the statistics are wrong.
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43021
Likes: 933 posts
Liked in: 4822 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby 1669 » Nov 9th, 2017, 11:15 pm

6 out of 9 is 66.66%.
Most people can see the math is correct.
1669
Guru
 
Posts: 5268
Likes: 1006 posts
Liked in: 433 posts
Joined: Nov 20th, 2013, 8:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Bickering Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest