Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

People with vicious dogs may be vicious too

technodoll
November 17th, 2006, 04:55 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15755870/

MyBirdIsEvil
November 17th, 2006, 05:17 PM
The study is trying to make akitas, pit bulls, chows and similar dogs appear vicious, but it does it by studying a group of people that are already likely to commit violent crimes, therefore their dogs are more likely to be trained to be violent.

There's no control group, they studied pitbull owners as a whole, and owners of other dogs as a whole, which are two completely seperate groups of people. It proves nothing as to the temperment of the dogs, just the temperment of the owners. People who are criminally inclined will cause their dogs to commit violent acts - these people just happen to own certain breeds because they have the ABILITY to do a lot of damage. The study doesn't say whether criminally minded people tend to have violent dogs even when they own a "normal" breed.

A valid study would be one of pit bull owners that don't commit crimes, and pit bull owners that DO commit crimes. Are the law abiding pit bull owners just as likely to have pit bulls that attack, or are the violent pit bull owners more likely to have pit bulls that attack.
Then you would have to split owners of "normal" dogs into two groups. Do violent owners of "normal" dogs have dogs that are more likely to attack, than law abiding owners of "normal" dogs?

The study is inherently flawed, the study doesn't even state a hypothesis or an expected result. Too bad most people can't look past the end result of the study and see that the actual study has problems.

The headline says "Owners of vicious dogs may be vicious too" which implies the dogs are inherently vicious. It should say "Vicious people make their dogs vicious"

MyBirdIsEvil
November 17th, 2006, 05:24 PM
Oh, and who caught this part?

They used agreed definitions of vicious dogs used in writing local ordinances. "A 'vicious dog" means a dog that, without provocation, has killed or caused serious injury to any person, has killed another dog, or belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog," they wrote in their report

If you have a criminal record and own a "pit bull dog" (that's not even a breed), you were included in the study whether or not your dog has attacked someone. You could have a lovely house pet, but if it was a "pit bull dog" then it was included as vicious.

I also like how they included traffic citations as a criminal record. So if you own a pit bull you're more likely to speed? :rolleyes:
What the heck do traffic citations show?
Beware pit bull owners! They might pass you on the highway!

Prin
November 17th, 2006, 05:29 PM
Oh, yeah, I saw that one. What a stupid thing. It starts off like "Maybe these dogs are the victims of bad owners" and then it changes into "these people are bad and the dogs are bad too."

There is no scientific method involved here- they didn't pick a random sample of people with dogs. They should have selected breed-specific owners at random and compared them to another breed's owners selected the same way. And then if the results show that more criminals etc have one over the other, then provide possible solutions to the problem (the problem being bad owners getting their hands on dogs...).

They also lump people with "traffic citations" in with the people with a record. How lame is that? Of course that'll boost numbers because from what I've seen younger people tend to get hard headed large breed dogs than older people...:shrug:

technodoll
November 17th, 2006, 05:36 PM
it's beyond words! :eek:

:yell: :yell: i hate the media!

On the other hand... he he he... studies also show that reporters who write up such BS also wet their bed and pick their nose at the dinner table. yep, a control group of 5 journalists in Crickside, Idado, showed this. :D

muckypup
November 17th, 2006, 10:33 PM
This made me laugh!!!!!

"The most frequent low-risk breeds seen in the study included terriers, beagles, collies and poodles." HA what is a pit bull??? hummmm a TERRIER?!!!!!! :crazy:

mummummum
November 17th, 2006, 11:41 PM
Does anyone remember the regular "One hundred Helens Agree" skit on Kids In the Hall? It had a better scientific methodology than this claptrap. This is the kind of garbage that fuels people like Bryant and his Bunions at Queen's Park.

Prin
November 18th, 2006, 12:16 AM
lol kids in the hall... awesome.:D

igauresh
November 18th, 2006, 05:41 AM
Dogs have different characteristics and sometimes they adopt the kind of environment they are living in. They depend on what was given to them but it doesn't mean that when the owner is vicious, they also may become vicious. I think they have their own minds way far from a human beings.

meb999
November 18th, 2006, 02:39 PM
I think we should blame pitbulls for the high crime rate. Owning a pitbull makes you want to commit crimes. It's all their fault!! :rolleyes: :D

meb999
November 18th, 2006, 02:40 PM
oh! and watch out for techno....she'll be robbing people and commiting violent crimes any day now...it's only a matter of time before her mean, mean akitas make her do it :D

technodoll
November 18th, 2006, 02:43 PM
yes. when i look at my akitas i have a sudden, uncontrollable urge to not pay my parking tickets and rob the corner dépanneur :eek: help!

meb999
November 18th, 2006, 03:20 PM
:eek: LOL!! :D

mummummum
November 18th, 2006, 04:07 PM
So the Monks of New Skete and their posse of GSD's really ARE a covert underworld gang of hardened criminals ?????

Hmmm... well, that certainly explains a few things doesn't it?

Prin
November 18th, 2006, 07:50 PM
yes. when i look at my akitas i have a sudden, uncontrollable urge to not pay my parking tickets and rob the corner dépanneur :eek: help!

So that was you I saw jaywalking the other day!?! :eek:

technodoll
November 18th, 2006, 10:51 PM
So that was you I saw jaywalking the other day!?!

no, i think it was my 84 year old neighbor, she owns a vicious chowchow! :eek:

Prin
November 18th, 2006, 11:00 PM
She musta been going out to see my old neighbor, the 86 year old with the rott. I think she jaywalks too.:evil:

technodoll
November 18th, 2006, 11:07 PM
i think we should report them. do i call frenchy, since she's Autoritay?... :confused:

Prin
November 18th, 2006, 11:16 PM
No, call the dude who conducted this "study". Tell him you have more "proof".:rolleyes:

mummummum
November 19th, 2006, 12:21 AM
Maybe it was a typo and they meant to say "Viscous" rather than "Vicious" and they were really talking about drooley people with slobbery dawgs...:D

meb999
November 19th, 2006, 03:12 PM
http://bestsmileys.com/lol/18.gif

Scubagear92
November 19th, 2006, 05:41 PM
A bit off-topic, are we? :)

Schwinn
November 20th, 2006, 02:21 PM
I think we should blame pitbulls for the high crime rate. Owning a pitbull makes you want to commit crimes. It's all their fault!! :rolleyes: :D

Well, it makes me want to choke people who write stupid stuff...maybe there's something to it? :D

dogmelissa
November 20th, 2006, 07:07 PM
There was a similar article in the paper here on the weekend... I'm trying to find an online copy of it. If not, I will see if I have the print version and type it in.

I personally didn't think the study was as bad as you all seem to think. The one I read said that they looked at the history of owners with certain "classes" of dogs, and those with pitbulls, rottweilers, chows, THAT HAD BEEN CLASSIFIED AS VICIOUS DOGS (attacked/killed another dog or person, not just those with those breed of dogs) were more than 5 times more likely to have committed a crime--and most of those were drug-related crimes. Something like 70% of those with pitbulls--and don't forget, this was just in one area--had been convicted of a drug or traffic-related crime. One thing I think is a little strange is that I got a speeding ticket, and I paid it--I plead guilty to a traffic offense. Does that mean that I'm classified in the same category as those who have committed a "traffic offense"?

While I don't agree that "just because" a person has a certain type of dog, they're automatically a criminal, the one thing that the article I read pointed out was that certain dogs are seen by the "general public" as being vicious (currently, pit bulls, rottweilers), and that people who do bad things, like are into drugs or organized crime, are more likely to get those breeds of dog because it'll keep "the public" away from them. An off-shoot of those people who are into crime is that they probably don't have the time or desire to properly train their dogs to be good, so then those pit bulls, rottis, etc, are breaking out of their yards, or being left to fend for themselves, and end up hurting other dogs or people.

Anyhow... I'll try to find the article tonight, I can't find it online.

Melissa

technodoll
November 20th, 2006, 07:26 PM
so a mobster's image would be kinda off if he toted a couple of white bichons on his sleeve eh? yip! yip! yip! :D

ItsMurphy'sLaw
November 20th, 2006, 07:40 PM
A quote that I am now using as a signature

"How we treat our animals is directly linked to how we treat each other."

I find true meaning to this quote :grouphug:

meb999
November 20th, 2006, 07:53 PM
so a mobster's image would be kinda off if he toted a couple of white bichons on his sleeve eh? yip! yip! yip! :D

oooooo, or a show-cut miniature poodle!! 'watcha lukin' at? Watsamaterforyou??'

dogmelissa
November 20th, 2006, 08:04 PM
so a mobster's image would be kinda off if he toted a couple of white bichons on his sleeve eh? yip! yip! yip! :D

But not if the bichons are named "Felon" and "Killer". :P

Prin
November 21st, 2006, 02:55 AM
oooooo, or a show-cut miniature poodle!! 'watcha lukin' at? Watsamaterforyou??'

lol lol :D Feggeddaboutit.

rainbow
November 21st, 2006, 05:08 AM
A quote that I am now using as a signature

"How we treat our animals is directly linked to how we treat each other."

I find true meaning to this quote :grouphug:


AMEN..... :thumbs up