snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Rantidote

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #761  
Old 11 June 2018, 02:28 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
In the US that may well be true. Around here the negativity is associated with the way that pit bulls attack and the damage that can result when they do. This fear may well have been overstated but IMO it's still a valid one. Whether banning the breed is a logical next step is, of course, another thing entirely. But I don't think acting like "pitties" are sweet little angel dogs, and this is something I see often, is going to help convince anyone who's seen the results of a pitbull attack that they should reconsider their fear and concern regarding this breed.
What is your evidence that there is a "way that pit bulls attack" and do you think that "the damage that can result when they do" is different from any other dog of similar size?
  #762  
Old 11 June 2018, 02:37 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

http://www.sunherald.com/news/local/...115943753.html

Excellent article.

To the question of how they attack and the consequences:

Quote:
A study in the 2007 American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology pointed out pit bulls are a particular problem because they usually don’t give warning signs before attacking.

“They tend not to make threatening gestures, such as snarling or baring of teeth, prior to attacking and so there may be no warning of impending aggressive behavior,” the study said. “Pit bulls also take multiple bites and have greater jaw pressures than most other dogs, reaching 1,800 pounds per square inch.”

They also attack continuously, as compared to other breeds that may just bite once. Combining all of those features with aggressive personalities and large sizes makes them “highly dangerous to children,” the study said.
When I worked at a local hospital I saw the results of a pit bull attack on a child. It was horrific.
  #763  
Old 11 June 2018, 02:46 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
Maybe this belongs in stupid questions but are beagles in the UK the same as beagles in Canada? The reason I ask is of course we don't have the history of fox hunting here and AFAIK beagles are the same as any other dog in terms of dogs people have as pets.
I think so, yes. I'm sure an individual beagle is fine, but in the UK if you see a pack of 20 or so dogs (just saying "multiple beagles" doesn't really sum it up) out loose in the countryside - they weren't being "walked" on leads - then you're automatically going to think of a pack of hunting dogs. It was basically a pack of hunting dogs, albeit young ones and albeit whoever owns them would probably claim that they just wanted to keep a pack of beagles because they like beagles, even though one of the arguments against the hunting ban at the time was that the people who owned the beagles would have to immediately kill them all if they weren't allowed to hunt with them.
  #764  
Old 11 June 2018, 02:54 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

While we don't have the history you do upon thinking it over if I saw people with that many dogs of any breed running loose in the countryside I think it would certainly give me pause! I'd agree with you that at the very least it would go in "Odd thing I saw today".
  #765  
Old 11 June 2018, 02:54 PM
kitap's Avatar
kitap kitap is offline
 
Join Date: 20 January 2001
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 9,834
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I would also understand the resort fee complaint if the resort fee is required -- that is, if it goes automatically along with renting the room.

Not everyone runs up a bar tab, and not everyone wants or gets a massage.It's possible to use the room -- and many people do -- without being charged for either. So I wouldn't assume those things were included unless the deal specifically said so. But I would tend to assume, unless it clearly said otherwise, that a pre-paid room reservation included all the fees necessary to rent the room.

ETA: if somebody's bit by a St Bernard, I wouldn't be surprised to see it reported as a pit bull attack, either.
There is a disclaimer at the bottom of the confirmation that states something like "resort fee or other fees such as parking fees to be paid by guest directly to hotel".

Yes, I know people can use hotels and not any amenities- I have been working as a night auditor for nearly 20 years. But when you fork over roughly $75 to hotwire, it's beyond ridiculous that you try to tell me that will cover one night at a resort, a $80 bar tab and a $135 massage. He argued with me, and couldn't believe I wouldn't back down.
  #766  
Old 11 June 2018, 03:02 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
http://www.sunherald.com/news/local/...115943753.html

Excellent article.

To the question of how they attack and the consequences:



When I worked at a local hospital I saw the results of a pit bull attack on a child. It was horrific.
Crappy article, because it gets the numbers wrong. Here is a video where they tested Rottweilers, German Shepards, and Pit Bulls - the Pitt Bull was lowest at 235 psi, and Rottweilers the highest at 328. Both a long, long way from the reported number in that article, and none of those are the highest - from everything I can find, the actual consensus is that Mastiffs or Kangals have the strongest bite, over 500 psi. Nothing is in the range of 1800.
All dogs if trained to continue to attack will, there is no "locking" of the jaw, and any kind of dog attacking a kid that ends up in the hospital is going to be horrific.
  #767  
Old 11 June 2018, 03:39 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kitap View Post
There is a disclaimer at the bottom of the confirmation that states something like "resort fee or other fees such as parking fees to be paid by guest directly to hotel".

Yes, I know people can use hotels and not any amenities- I have been working as a night auditor for nearly 20 years. But when you fork over roughly $75 to hotwire, it's beyond ridiculous that you try to tell me that will cover one night at a resort, a $80 bar tab and a $135 massage. He argued with me, and couldn't believe I wouldn't back down.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you didn't know that! And I agree that thinking $75 would cover not only room rent but an open bar and other separate services is absurd -- that's actually part of the point I was trying to make, that those assumptions make no sense.

It might help to put the disclaimer in larger print. But nothing will help with some people.

As far as the beagles go: beagles are quite commonly kept as pets here, and also, somewhat less commonly but it's not really unusual, kept as hunting dogs. They're not usually after fox, it's usually rabbits or raccoon. A few years ago I had a hunting pack come running across my property, in midhunt, their human nowhere in sight. Two or three of them actually came running up to me, in a friendly manner -- I didn't feel in any way threatened. The others ignored me and just kept on going. I don't give permission for this type of hunting, and I caught one of the dogs in order to get the owner's information off her collar so I could call him up and complain (which worked; he argued with me a bit, but it hasn't happened again) -- I actually briefly had her shut up in a barn, but she slipped by me when I went back out to make sure she had water, and got loose again. She let me handle her, though, with no sign of animosity or objection (I'm fairly good at reading Dog, and would have backed off immediately if she'd given me warning signs.)
  #768  
Old 11 June 2018, 04:02 PM
Gutter Monkey's Avatar
Gutter Monkey Gutter Monkey is offline
 
Join Date: 13 December 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
Crappy article, because it gets the numbers wrong. Here is a video where they tested Rottweilers, German Shepards, and Pit Bulls - the Pitt Bull was lowest at 235 psi, and Rottweilers the highest at 328.
I'm not going to blindly accept either claim on the biting power of animals without looking further into them but I'm pretty sure that if I had to choose then I'd put more faith in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology than some random guy in an unsourced youtube video who did some pretty shoddy tests using exactly one dog from each breed in question.


(Of course there's also no guarantee that this newspaper article quoted the journal study correctly, or in the correct context)


Edit: the journal article is called "Pitbull Mauling Deaths in Detroit" and you can read it in a pdf for free from the CiteSeerX site if anyone wants to check the source but it has EXTREMELY GRAPHIC [spoiler]photos of dismembered corpses of babies that have been torn apart by dogs[/spoiler]. I had to close the file pretty quickly, my stomach wasn't strong enough for that.

Last edited by Gutter Monkey; 11 June 2018 at 04:07 PM.
  #769  
Old 11 June 2018, 04:05 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutter Monkey View Post
I'm not going to blindly accept either claim on the biting power of animals without looking further into them but I'm pretty sure that if I had to choose then I'd put more faith in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology than some random guy in an unsourced youtube video who did some pretty shoddy tests using exactly one dog from each breed in question.


(Of course there's also no guarantee that this newspaper article quoted the journal study correctly, or in the correct context)
I found it funny that an article that was very balanced and was in no way saying "ban the pit bull" is till considered shoddy because it presumed to point out that there are valid concerns. I mean how dare they!!
  #770  
Old 11 June 2018, 04:52 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutter Monkey View Post
I'm not going to blindly accept either claim on the biting power of animals without looking further into them but I'm pretty sure that if I had to choose then I'd put more faith in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology than some random guy in an unsourced youtube video who did some pretty shoddy tests using exactly one dog from each breed in question.


(Of course there's also no guarantee that this newspaper article quoted the journal study correctly, or in the correct context)


Edit: the journal article is called "Pitbull Mauling Deaths in Detroit" and you can read it in a pdf for free from the CiteSeerX site if anyone wants to check the source but it has EXTREMELY GRAPHIC ....
I did look at the journal article (and I echo the warning -- it shows that result of mauling deaths of children -- some of the most disturbing images you might ever see). I think it does contain some of the information it was cited for, but it cautioned about generalizing and blaming breeds.

There are a number of issues with both articles that I won't further hijack the thread to discuss at length, but I will point out 3 things.

1. I don't blame anyone for not trusting a YouTube video that isn't from a source that is trustworthy, but journal articles are in roughly the same boat when it comes to information outside their field of expertise. They just hide it by citing each other. This article (linked below) studied the human healthcare literature involving dog bites, and the conclusion was that, basically, human health care professionals don't know what they are talking about when it comes to dogs and dog behavior (animal behavior is a board-specialty for veterinarians -- even vets may not be fully qualified on it), and they are subject to the same misinformation and moral panics as the general public. When they put them into a journal article, though, it gains the imprimatur of coming from "experts." But they are not experts *on this subject*.
Defaming Rover: Error-Based Latent Rhetoric in the Medical Literature on Dog Bites (PDF).

2. There are credible sources debunking these claims, based on real evidence and expertise. If you believe that pit bulls have these unique characteristics, or should be singled out in breed specific legislation, as a ULMB member I think you should challenge yourself by seeking out the recent literature on the subject by dog behavior experts, and people studying the effects of breed bans.

3. Illustrating a common and large part of the statistics problem: the SunHerald article is illustrated by photos of dogs identified as "pit bulls" that are obviously not.

Last edited by erwins; 11 June 2018 at 05:00 PM.
  #771  
Old 11 June 2018, 05:28 PM
NobleHunter's Avatar
NobleHunter NobleHunter is offline
 
Join Date: 21 September 2005
Location: Peterborough, Ontario
Posts: 619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
I think so, yes. I'm sure an individual beagle is fine, but in the UK if you see a pack of 20 or so dogs (just saying "multiple beagles" doesn't really sum it up) out loose in the countryside - they weren't being "walked" on leads - then you're automatically going to think of a pack of hunting dogs. It was basically a pack of hunting dogs, albeit young ones and albeit whoever owns them would probably claim that they just wanted to keep a pack of beagles because they like beagles, even though one of the arguments against the hunting ban at the time was that the people who owned the beagles would have to immediately kill them all if they weren't allowed to hunt with them.
My mostly beagle mutt (his conformation seemed to be breed standard but he was about half-again as large) was a rejected hunting dog offloaded on the local humane society (I live in Canada). Not sure why he didn't make the cut though.

I assume non-hunters keep packs of beagles because that way the pack between them have enough brain-cells to form a functioning brain. They'd also ensure there's no unattended food within a mile or so.
  #772  
Old 11 June 2018, 06:02 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,566
Default

I dearly love Pit Bulls, have fostered several and would someday love to start a Pit Bull rescue. Untrained, the breed is less likely to be viscous than many other breeds I've encountered. I don't agree with breed bans, though I'd be perfectly fine with a city or park which banned all dogs.

That all said, if a pit bull attacks its probably going to end badly for the person attacked. Worse than if he/she was attacked by many other breeds for reasons mentioned up-thread. Few breeds have the evident musculature a Pit does. IMO, this shouldn't lead to laws targeted at Pits. But, if I had a choice between approaching a viscous Pit and just about any other breed, I'd take the other dog 90% of the time.

It is also important to note that the data is skewed in many urban areas because Pits are such popular dogs. Easily more than 50% of the dogs living in and around my own neighborhood are Pits.
  #773  
Old 11 June 2018, 06:33 PM
Gutter Monkey's Avatar
Gutter Monkey Gutter Monkey is offline
 
Join Date: 13 December 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlife! View Post
Untrained, the breed is less likely to be viscous than many other breeds I've encountered.
Yeah it's a pretty solid breed.
  #774  
Old 11 June 2018, 06:38 PM
musicgeek's Avatar
musicgeek musicgeek is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2005
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 5,672
Default

Snerk.

English bulldogs, now those can be viscous. Around the jowl area, anyway.
  #775  
Old 11 June 2018, 06:40 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutter Monkey View Post
I'm not going to blindly accept either claim on the biting power of animals without looking further into them but I'm pretty sure that if I had to choose then I'd put more faith in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology than some random guy in an unsourced youtube video who did some pretty shoddy tests using exactly one dog from each breed in question.
I chose the video so that people could see it. It also isn't some random dude - It's Dr. Brady Barr, and he did that particular testing for a TV special. I could attach more cites, but I think erwins took care of that extra need. If you would like me to dig a bunch up, I will certainly do so.
The article about mauling deaths in Detroit is still flawed, because it still gives the 1800 psi jaw force. That's equivalent to the force of a hippopotamus, well above a bull shark. According to this site, that is because whoever first started this whole thing was presenting in Newtons, not pounds. Convert that, and the numbers become fairly close to what else I have seen. But the sites that you and others have sited are reporting incorrect numbers, which to me calls the entirety of their reports into question.
  #776  
Old 11 June 2018, 07:22 PM
Gutter Monkey's Avatar
Gutter Monkey Gutter Monkey is offline
 
Join Date: 13 December 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
I chose the video so that people could see it. It also isn't some random dude - It's Dr. Brady Barr, and he did that particular testing for a TV special. I could attach more cites, but I think erwins took care of that extra need. If you would like me to dig a bunch up, I will certainly do so.
I don't actually care about the bite force of any kind of dog, I'm just saying that the evidence you chose to cite was shoddy. This link that you just posted actually gives several reasons why it was shoddy but I could add a few more: it wasn't performed under laboratory conditions, the person who was the subject of the bites was also trying to read off the measurements at the same time, the number of test cases was ridiculously low, etc etc.. It was extremely shoddy evidence and I'm disappointed that you'd post it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
According to this site, that is because whoever first started this whole thing was presenting in Newtons, not pounds.
Incorrect. They float it as a possible explanation but don't actually follow up on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
But the sites that you and others have sited are reporting incorrect numbers, which to me calls the entirety of their reports into question.
I haven't "sited" (sic) any sites, I've just called all the cited evidence into question. You still haven't posted any decent citations to back up your claims.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not saying that I don't believe you (I'm genuinely not interested in the topic) I'm just pointing out that you've failed to back up your claims properly. Again.

You've earned another of these:


Edit: I should add that dismissing the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology article just because you disagree with their finding and not because you disagree with their methodology or anything like that makes you sound biased.

Edit 2: if you want to continue this discussion I'd recommend starting a new thread for it because it's veering off topic here.

Last edited by Gutter Monkey; 11 June 2018 at 07:31 PM.
  #777  
Old 11 June 2018, 08:01 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutter Monkey View Post
I don't actually care about the bite force of any kind of dog, I'm just saying that the evidence you chose to cite was shoddy. This link that you just posted actually gives several reasons why it was shoddy but I could add a few more: it wasn't performed under laboratory conditions, the person who was the subject of the bites was also trying to read off the measurements at the same time, the number of test cases was ridiculously low, etc etc.. It was extremely shoddy evidence and I'm disappointed that you'd post it.
I'm probably more disappointed with your tone here, and your thought that anyone deserves a fish slap. As I understand it, that is for joking around things. If we have gotten to the point that it is a serious comment on what people are posting, then the civility on this board has gone way too far down hill. Again, I chose that simply as a video that people could look at,because a lot of people like to watch videos. The other site I linked to referenced that video (which is how I got to it in the first place), and while it did say that may not be the maximum because of location and does not take into account how angry the dog was, it again was to show a video. Of dogs. On the internet.



Quote:
Incorrect. They float it as a possible explanation but don't actually follow up on that.
Wow. OK. Yes, they say it is a possible explanation, but they put forth no other possibility. So you got me, they hedged a bit.


Quote:
I haven't "sited" (sic) any sites, I've just called all the cited evidence into question. You still haven't posted any decent citations to back up your claims.
Incorrect. You referenced the Detroit study in your ETA. Why in the world would you say you hadn't cited something when you had?

Quote:
PLEASE NOTE: I'm not saying that I don't believe you (I'm genuinely not interested in the topic) I'm just pointing out that you've failed to back up your claims properly. Again.

You've earned another of these:


Edit: I should add that dismissing the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology article just because you disagree with their finding and not because you disagree with their methodology or anything like that makes you sound biased.
I disagree with them promoting numbers that are not backed up by anything, not their conclusion. Of course, their conclusion is bogus because they are using a number that is clearly wrong to reach that conclusion.

Quote:
Edit 2: if you want to continue this discussion I'd recommend starting a new thread for it because it's veering off topic here.
Did you get promoted to thread drifting police at some point? I assume you are going to go into every other thread on the board and make sure no one goes off topic even a little bit.
  #778  
Old 11 June 2018, 08:53 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,192
Default

I know I called it a hijack earlier in my second post, but this would not be the first time we deeply discussed the merits of whether something is in fact, a thing you should not have to tell people. It is unclear exactly how many of the first few posts were intended that way, I suppose.

Some of what is in the last few posts might also seem to fit the topic, but I think there has wisely been an unwritten rule that we don't use this thread to snark at other posters. (Which is also a reflection, I think, of the written rules requiring civility.) So I hope no one considers those posts to be directly on topic.

Also, I agree about fish thwacking -- I have always understood it to be for light-hearted joking, not virtual knuckle-rapping.
  #779  
Old 11 June 2018, 09:02 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post

Some of what is in the last few posts might also seem to fit the topic, but I think there has wisely been an unwritten rule that we don't use this thread to snark at other posters. (Which is also a reflection, I think, of the written rules requiring civility.) So I hope no one considers those posts to be directly on topic.
Hijacking to jump off this point - considering there has been little to no moderation of this place for a while now (certainly if there has been it's been very discreet) I think it's a nice reflection on most of the participants here that we've rarely degenerated into true incivility or that if we have we've gotten back on track quickly. Back a few years and there were more than a few times when mods had to come in and get stern. Hmm, on reflection though this may be a case of how relatively quiet this board has become rather than on the fact that we're all being good little participants.
  #780  
Old 11 June 2018, 11:00 PM
Keket's Avatar
Keket Keket is offline
 
Join Date: 11 January 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 2,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
In the US that may well be true. Around here the negativity is associated with the way that pit bulls attack and the damage that can result when they do. This fear may well have been overstated but IMO it's still a valid one. Whether banning the breed is a logical next step is, of course, another thing entirely. But I don't think acting like "pitties" are sweet little angel dogs, and this is something I see often, is going to help convince anyone who's seen the results of a pitbull attack that they should reconsider their fear and concern regarding this breed.
Unfortunately, it's logic/facts versus emotion, which is what a lot of arguments on the internet boil down to.

Person A: I'm afraid of X and it's dangerous and we should ban it!
Expert in the field of X: I understand your feelings, but statistically speaking, X is not dangerous.
Person A: But this person I know was hurt/killed by X!
Expert: Anecdotes =! data.

The fear generally isn't valid, that's the problem. It's real, but there's little actual basis to it. I've seen wicked results of horse attacks, cat attacks, Chihuahua attacks, rat bites, etc. But no one is trying to ban those.

Sorry, I'm getting a little heated because I hate seeing harmless animals demonized and euthanized over emotion rather than facts. I see and deal with a huge number of dogs and pit bulls don't crack my top ten for dangerous dogs.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Things you shouldn't have to tell people DawnStorm Rantidote 1002 16 January 2016 08:34 AM
Things you shouldn't have to tell people imjustasteph Rantidote 1010 18 April 2015 10:55 PM
Things you shouldn't have to tell people WildaBeast Rantidote 999 13 July 2014 08:15 PM
Things you shouldn't have to tell people Amigone201 Rantidote 1003 07 January 2014 11:59 PM
Things you shouldn't have to tell people JoeBentley Rantidote 1001 11 April 2013 05:29 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.