How neutering dogs became the norm • Hacker News Board

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#231

Post by sn_master » Mon, Dec 28, 2020, 11:09 PM UTC

perardi wrote: post #87

sn_master wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pit bulls are dangerous dogs, unlike most other breeds. source: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pitbull+attack Edit: https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2019... 69% of fatalities due to dog bites were caused by the same breed.

“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

If you bring any group of people and show them a variation of dogs and ask which ones are "pit bull", 95%+ of them will agree on the same dogs. Just because its multiple breeds doesn't make it an "incoherent concept".

DNA tests exist for dogs now, same like humans, and can unambiguously find if a dog is a pitbull mix.

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#232

Post by hurflmurfl » Wed, Dec 30, 2020, 10:02 AM UTC

sn_master wrote: post #69

leetcrew wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are almost 80 million dogs in america. linking a video with hundreds of pitbull attacks is not much better than just saying your neighbor has one and it's mean. the margin for error is probably higher with a lab or golden retriever, but it's irresponsible to own any large dog without committing to proper training and socialization. any large dog can maim or kill a human if provoked.

There is a reason BSLs exist. Scientists in those countries have decided pitbulls in particular are statistically more dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation Please be cautious before getting a pit bull yourself or for a loved one. I don't see this discussion moving forward regardless of whatever evidence I present. God bless, have a great holiday.

From this article on Wikipedia you've posted a link to:

> In a 2014 literature review, the American Veterinary Medical Association stated that "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous", and that "it has not been demonstrated that introducing a breed-specific ban will reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries occurring in the community".

> In 2012, the American Bar Association passed a resolution urging the repeal of breed-specific legislation, stating that it is "ineffective at improving public safety".

> In 2013, researchers in Canada found no difference in incidence of dog bites between municipalities with breed-specific legislation and those without it, and in 2008, the Dutch government repealed a 15 year ban on pit bulls, concluding the law was ineffective.

In any case, I'm not sure that having a legislation can be used as a proof of anything. In some countries same-sex sexual activity is illegal and penalized. What does this prove?

Re: How neutering dogs became the norm

#233

Post by sn_master » Wed, Dec 30, 2020, 10:51 PM UTC

hurflmurfl wrote: post #232

sn_master wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a reason BSLs exist. Scientists in those countries have decided pitbulls in particular are statistically more dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation Please be cautious before getting a pit bull yourself or for a loved one. I don't see this discussion moving forward regardless of whatever evidence I present. God bless, have a great holiday.

From this article on Wikipedia you've posted a link to: > In a 2014 literature review, the American Veterinary Medical Association stated that "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous", and that "it has not been demonstrated that introducing a breed-specific ban will reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries occurring in the community". > In 2012, the American Bar As…

Sure, lets look at those one-by-one:

The "American Bar Association" is not a valid source about dog behavior. They're lawyers being paid to push whatever agenda gives them the most money. Not gonna comment on that one since its missing any other scientific evidence.

The 2014 American Veterinary Medical Association "literature review" is being picked and chosen from in the Wikipedia article. Quotes from the very same report that were conveniently missing from the Wikipedia article:

"While small dogs may be more aggressive their size means they are less likely to inflict serious bite injury except on vulnerable individuals"

"Certain large breeds are notably under-represented in bite statistics such as large hounds and retrievers (e.g., Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers)"

"...cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities, pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified..."

The 2013 Canadian study isn't being cited in the Wikipedia article. Instead, the citation is a link to an opinion piece that mentions the said study without giving any references to it (no links or even author or institution name). As far as I am concerned, that Canadian study is made up, unless you can find it and we discuss it. I never saw any respected author mention a scientific study and then fail to completely give any references to it, not even freshmen in university would do that.

On the other hand, this is an actual cited quote from that opinion piece that's directly linked in place of the Canadian study:

"Breed-specific laws strengthen existing dangerous dog laws by targeting some of those prime offenders."

The Dutch ban on dangerous dogs which was lifted on 2008, was more or less re-instated in 2017. Wikipedia conveniently forgot to mention that:

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2017/05/dutch-draw-up-dangerou...

Using one law that in your opinion isn't sound, as an argument against laws in general having no merit doesn't make a lot of sense either.

A law isn't a scientific proof, but at a minimum it tells a lot that a problem in society has become so prevalent to justify passing said law.

If the number of victims and complaints were so negligible, the law wouldn't have had enough momentum to pass the all of the bureaucratic barriers, including the European animal rights groups, who are far more fierce than the US ones.