How neutering dogs became the norm • Hacker News Board

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#221

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 12:48 AM UTC

denimnerd42 wrote: post #165

michaelmrose wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009) Objective—To examine potentially preventable factors in human dog bite–related fatalities (DBRFs) on the basis of data from sources that were more complete, verifiable, and accurate than media reports used in previous studies. Design—Prospective ca…

One thing I just remembered: Previous to Michael Vick's very public dog fighting bust in 2007 most dogs were destroyed after being seized from dog fighting(1). After Michael Vick's exposure organizations popped up to save these dogs. Now saving pit bulls is more popular than ever but not every shelter has the resources to do it. 1. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764790714/what-happened-to-th...

To be clear they evaluated the dogs and adopted the ones that could be homed and placed the rest in a non family setting so that they could rehab them before being adopted out.

To revisit the prior statement you made

>but I don't think these shelters should be pushing these dogs onto families. Especially ones that have killed family pets before and are being advertised as "good with children"

If the article is intended to support that never defended position it does not do so. In order to evaluate that a journalist or interested party would need to investigate the adoption procedure and figure out if adopting families were properly informed.

Furthermore to be clear 3.2 million dogs are adopted from shelters. I was unable to ascertain how many dogs are rescued from dog fighting rings annually but surmise it is probably measured at most in the hundreds. This is to say that something on the over of 1 dog in 10,000 is a refugee from dog fighting. The fate of a tiny number of ex fighting dogs is of almost no relevance to the overall pitbull question.

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#222

Post by hansvm » Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 5:11 AM UTC

sn_master wrote: post #218

hansvm wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the way that's phrased -- it's the law to allow service animals, but they're only often allowed. Landlords have a lot of power, especially over anyone living paycheck to paycheck, and some of them will knowingly break laws if they think you're unable to fight back.

No one likes to have loud dog barking all day and night from their neighbors. Its not about enjoying power over people, its about making the lives of everyone around you less sucky. You can always get a turtle, a fish a hamster, guinea pig etc and no one will even know you have one and you can enjoy their company just as much as a dog. Lookup YouTube to find evidence of how fun small animals can be.

> Its not about _enjoying_ power

Not what I said and not the point (or not the point I was making -- it was a tangent from the main thread). However they might personally feel about it, landlords _have_ a lot of power. Some of them use that power to break the law without consequence, presumably when it's financially beneficial.

To the rest of your comment, it seems you're conflating service animals (well trained, won't bark all day and night, legally protected, still sometimes banned by unscrupulous landlords) with emotional support animals (undefined training, might bark all day and night, minimal legal protections, often banned even by scrupulous landlords). Is that accurate, or is there something more to your comment that I'm missing?

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#223

Post by etempleton » Sun, Dec 27, 2020, 6:45 AM UTC

bloodorange wrote: post #216

etempleton wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be able to control the dog you adopt. Not all dogs are good for every person. Your experience raising dogs, space available, physical strength, and your time should all be considered. I have heard a good measure for physical strength required is that you should be able to carry any fully grown dog you own. If you can’t pick them up and carry them a short distance you probably do not have the physical stength…

Not many can pick up and carry a St. Bernard. However, I agree that one must be able to control one's dog. There is no flexibility there. If you are attentive and diligent you can train the dog without resorting to having to overpower it. Speaking of overpowering, I used to walk a German Shepherd at a shelter many years ago. He wasn't well trained and in the beginning he used to tug at the leash with all his might. H…

And I would argue not many people should own a St. Bernard size dog.

However, I should clarify, the point regarding being able to lift a dog that you own is not so that you can physically control the dog in a dominating fashion (I am of the opinion you should not try to dominate a dog as with a large or powerful dog it could end badly). It is more so that if you are walking the dog and it suddenly pulls towards a squirrel or something you are not instantly pulled off balance. Also, if the dog were to be injured that you could get the dog to your vehicle to drive to the vet.

Your point, however, is well taken. Police K-9s may only weigh 50 lbs but easily take full grown men weighing 200 lbs to the ground. No one should try to dominate a dog. That teaches them that that is how you interact with people and they will eventually do it to someone else if not you.

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#224

Post by bloodorange » Sun, Dec 27, 2020, 4:34 PM UTC

etempleton wrote: post #223

bloodorange wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not many can pick up and carry a St. Bernard. However, I agree that one must be able to control one's dog. There is no flexibility there. If you are attentive and diligent you can train the dog without resorting to having to overpower it. Speaking of overpowering, I used to walk a German Shepherd at a shelter many years ago. He wasn't well trained and in the beginning he used to tug at the leash with all his might. H…

And I would argue not many people should own a St. Bernard size dog. However, I should clarify, the point regarding being able to lift a dog that you own is not so that you can physically control the dog in a dominating fashion (I am of the opinion you should not try to dominate a dog as with a large or powerful dog it could end badly). It is more so that if you are walking the dog and it suddenly pulls towards a squ…

After your clarification, I can see that we are in agreement.

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#225

Post by sn_master » Mon, Dec 28, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

hansvm wrote: post #222

sn_master wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one likes to have loud dog barking all day and night from their neighbors. Its not about enjoying power over people, its about making the lives of everyone around you less sucky. You can always get a turtle, a fish a hamster, guinea pig etc and no one will even know you have one and you can enjoy their company just as much as a dog. Lookup YouTube to find evidence of how fun small animals can be.

> Its not about _enjoying_ power Not what I said and not the point (or not the point I was making -- it was a tangent from the main thread). However they might personally feel about it, landlords _have_ a lot of power. Some of them use that power to break the law without consequence, presumably when it's financially beneficial. To the rest of your comment, it seems you're conflating service animals (well trained, won…

My comment was about dogs that aren't trained well to be in an apartment situation. Service animals obviously don't fall into that category.

Its about someone having a loud dog that can't stop barking at night and then when anyone tries to talk to them about it they just claim that the other party are animal haters and like to enforce illegal clauses.

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#226

Post by sn_master » Mon, Dec 28, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

mikestew wrote: post #73

sn_master wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2019... Says Pit Bulls are responsible for 69% of the fatalities (not just of all attacks).

That source can say anything it wants, and obviously people who want to believe their message will believe it. Those that prefer their sources to not have a singular ax to grind, such as the source you posted, will skip that one. No, more YouTube links won't help, either.

Typical SJW logic...

If I don't provide a source (because apparently qualified PhD expert interviews on national TV aren't a "source"), you mock me for not having provided one.

When I provide a written one which has citations from government agencies and hospitals, you just say "That source can say anything it wants".

Why don't you get a pit bull yourself, preferably one that has been in a half dozen homes and gotten back to the shelter because it killed several pets and injured young children, and then tell me how it feels like, if you don't end up on a YouTube video yourself first, that is.

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#227

Post by sn_master » Mon, Dec 28, 2020, 10:15 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #150

denimnerd42 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You link a pitbull lobbying group as defense? There are plenty of pit bull lobbies. Most of them come from no-kill background because pitbulls are the most common dogs in shelters. There is no national register for dog bites. You can see how coronavirus tracking goes to show how much of a feat that would be. All you can do is track evidence in newspapers and in online media. Interview ER docs, plastic surgeons, etc.

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009) Objective—To examine potentially preventable factors in human dog bite–related fatalities (DBRFs) on the basis of data from sources that were more complete, verifiable, and accurate than media reports used in previous studies. Design—Prospective ca…

I will quote you, yourself, when you told me above "That source can say anything it wants".

You are bringing a SINGLE case of a "professional victim" and ignoring literally the over one hundred cases in my link with videos and photos of children, elderly and adults who got KILLED by pit bulls. Are all of those hundreds of dead bodies professional victims too?

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#228

Post by sn_master » Mon, Dec 28, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

denimnerd42 wrote: post #134

perardi wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Pit bull” isn’t even a coherent concept; it a loose term for a constellation of terrier and bulldog breeds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

And most of those types of dogs are not good family dogs. Dog aggression, resource guarding, strength, high pain tolerance, bred to fight literal bulls, etc. I can share some outcomes of their mauling on little children and the elderly if you would like.

Unfortunately, shelters use that loose definition idea and try to pass them off as other breeds to unsuspecting families.

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#229

Post by sn_master » Mon, Dec 28, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #219

sn_master wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you even saying? Scientists use statistics from hospitals. They find that 90% of brutal gruesome deaths are caused by one breed or variation of such breed, they ban that breed from being adopted. Result? 90% less gruesome bloody murders of innocent children and elderly -> success, the law is here to stay! Where is the "illogical" or "circular" part? I don't understand what those words have to do here. Do you…

Surely you could provide some studies that show that in areas with breed bans the rate of gruesome violent deaths are down 90%, or you could if that were real. Outside of fantasies pushed by a professional victim there isn't such proof and on net the number of people killed by dogs is about 1/10 of the number that drown in bathtubs and you could do more for the world by demanding grab bars be installed in every bathr…

Why are you comparing apples to oranges and claiming to care about science at the same time?

We're comparing the violent and fatal attacks of one breed of dogs with violent and fatal attacks of other dogs. How or why are you comparing that with bath-tub drowning? Might as well compare it with car accidents too.

Even if I come to entertain your train of thought, drowning in a bath tub isn't the same as watching your own four years old child's limbs get torn one after the other, and bleeding to death infront of your own eyes while being helpless against the beast (one example, hundreds more exist clicks away if you choose to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYVPeQKDeI)

Plenty of people provided scientifically backed links in this thread of evidence that pitbulls, as commonly understood and anyone can define with their own eyes, are responsible for the majority (over 70%) of fatal and violent attacks. You've chosen to ignore all of those and provide a SINGLE case of a "professional victim", while at the same time laughing and telling us multiple anecdotes mean nothing when we gave you hundreds of videos of dead children, dead elderly and horribly wounded adults and pets, all with their full names, locations and exact circumstances proving the animal was a pitbull.

I don't even understand where is your passion coming from. By banning their adoption, those dogs won't get hurt. The existing ones will live in their homes for the duration of their natural life and the shelters won't have to resort to tricking people into adopting them (https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...).

What's the harm to society if the US adopts the same UK regulations? Or what's the good to society by keeping these dogs around for adoption?

Me and others here for the BSL, are doing it after experiencing or hearing about horrifying experiences from these very strong dogs and what they can do to a child, elderly or even a strong adult.

Are you trying to somewhat equate this to racism or something? Because it is not. All humans adapt and become civilized and equal to one another through education and parenting regardless of race. That's not the same for animals. A snake will remain a snake, and a tiger will remain a tiger. A wolf can become a dog, but only after many many generations of select breeding. A pit-bull with violent history killing pets won't become a fluffy playful doggy just because you're smiling at it.

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#230

Post by sn_master » Mon, Dec 28, 2020, 11:00 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #220

sn_master wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in many cases shelters were caught lying about the breed of pit bulls. https://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/neighborhood-politics-...

They aren't lying about the breed of dog they aren't providing the shelters best guess as to the dog breed to the prospective owners prior to adoption. More to the point the link doesn't even state anyone was "caught" doing anything. This is literally you misrepresenting what your own link actually states. In essence you were literally in the comment where you say they were caught lying the only one caught lying.

Huh, sorry about that. There you go, much more specific cases and scientific studies from reputed sources as they get:

https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2018-08/g...

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...