• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

So about the chimp attack in Conn. It's getting creepy..

#41
There are studies that claim certain breeds are more likely to attack than others. A study by Merritt Clifton, which analyzed serious attacks in the U.S. and Canada between 1982 and 2006, determined that Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios, and their mixes were responsible for 74% of attacks studied and 65% of fatalities.[6][7] Another study indicates that pit bulls and their mixes were involved in approximately one third of the reported human dog bite-related fatalities between 1981 and 1992, while Rottweilers were responsible for about half of those fatalities reported between 1993 and 1996. [7]
Click to expand...

This is much like saying (although less obviously controversial) that the the large proportions of people incarcerated for violent crimes are African American and Latino "proves" that these races are inherently more violent, brutal, and thuggish.

There are a lot of other factors beside race (or breed) at work.
A study showing the percentage of dogs involved in fatal or serious attacks who are owned by convicted criminals, for example, would be instructive. But it wouldn't sell many newspapers.

Virtually all of the violent attacks I've researched (and I acknowledge that those numbers have been in the dozens, rather than the hundreds) have the same root cause -wacko dog owners.
When you get into it, the details are pretty outrageous.
And no, I'm not saying "all pitbulls are fine", any more than I'm saying "all Cocker Spaniels are fine".
But the details of ownership and treatment, along with individual genetics, are far more important than the larger genotype of "breed".

Anyway, Mark, I sense that I'm unlikely to convince you, and given that I work with these dogs (primarily Pitbulls) in a rescue capacity and observe them on a daily basis, you're unlikely to convince me.
 
#42
kesslari said:
This is much like saying (although less obviously controversial) that the the large proportions of people incarcerated for violent crimes are African American and Latino "proves" that these races are inherently more violent, brutal, and thuggish.

There are a lot of other factors beside race (or breed) at work.
A study showing the percentage of dogs involved in fatal or serious attacks who are owned by convicted criminals, for example, would be instructive. But it wouldn't sell many newspapers.

Virtually all of the violent attacks I've researched (and I acknowledge that those numbers have been in the dozens, rather than the hundreds) have the same root cause -wacko dog owners.
When you get into it, the details are pretty outrageous.
And no, I'm not saying "all pitbulls are fine", any more than I'm saying "all Cocker Spaniels are fine".
But the details of ownership and treatment, along with individual genetics, are far more important than the larger genotype of "breed".

Anyway, Mark, I sense that I'm unlikely to convince you, and given that I work with these dogs (primarily Pitbulls) in a rescue capacity and observe them on a daily basis, you're unlikely to convince me.
Click to expand...
Actually I am largely indifferent to the whole debate, but the known statistics to date suggest that there is some correlation between breed and propensity to attack. It may well be that the two have a similar root cause (ie owners who are more likely to be negligent with the upbringing of their dog are more likely to pick certain breeds) rather than a direct cause and effect relationship. However, statistically, if you are killed by a dog, its much more likely that dog will be of certain breeds than other breeds. Sure, the "chow chow" may have the most recorded dog bites attributed to it, but i'd much rather be bitten be a chow chow than attacked by a pitbull. Accordingly, if I see an unleashed chow chow walking down the street i'll probably walk right past it. An unleashed pitbull? Maybe not.
 
#49
On the whole "are pit bulls and rotties inherently more dangerous" angle, here's my take: If I'm walking down the street by myself, in a rough neighborhood, at night, and a young man wearing a hoodie starts toward me... my first thought is not "if he had been raised in a nurturing environment he could have been the sweetest and most loving boy."

IOW the protests of Pit and Rottie lovers and rescuers are meaningless to me, because the fact is such a huge percentage of Pits and Rotties are raised by ignorant and/or violent people. And I have read just as many stories of rescued and "rehabilitated" Pits losing it and biting someone as I have of regular thug/trash Pits biting someone.

For that matter, now that I think about it some more, most of the dog bites I've read of were from dogs who were sweet and loving to their immediate family/pack including small children, grandmas/etc. in their home, but who then turn on any outsider with viciousness. So whenever I see a Pit/Rottie defender saying "they are sweet, loving dogs who are just misunderstood", I have to see that through the filter of <<the person saying that is in a position of being "in the pack" with their dogs, and wilfully oblivious to the threat the dog poses to anyone not in the pack>>.
 
#50
Relic said:
I've spanked my monkey raw, but it's never torn my face off.
Click to expand...

and....sigged.

It's about time I managed to grab a good one.

BTW anyone ever watch that briefly lived show on fox "Man Vs. Beast" ?

They had a orangutan Vs. a gigantic body builder/professional lifter of heavy things in a tug of war over a pit of mud. The orangutan (female I believe) seemed to put no effort in and with one hand yanked the guy a good 15 flying into the mud pit. and then proceeded to jump up and down and make silly faces. It was almost as hilarious as Japanese guy Vs. Bear in a hotdog eating contest.
 
#51
Lots of animals attack the head, like the incidents last year in California involving mountain lions. The idea that the animals are operating by human social terms is the essential mistake. The animals are doing what they do naturally, and when the triggers are right they attack in what we consider a ruthless manner.

Hell, house cats and dogs are predators but never as dangerous as an angry and agitated spouse/significant other.

-richard
 
#52
They don't look all that bad to me!

monkees.jpg
.

Come on, it was bound to happen sooner or later. :D
 
#59
bassybill said:
Thank you. I thought I was the only one noticing that. :D

Several species of apes can be extremely aggressive at times. I mean, just look at Homo sapiens.
Click to expand...

Sure, always blaming gays for the wrongs of society....
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back