Pit Bull Viciously Attacks News Anchor With Love and Slobber
tags:
Stumble This(Attack starts at 49 seconds)
News anchor Randene Neill is repeatedly and savagely licked, almost to death, by a pit bull named Ginger. So much for pit bull's nasty reputation. By the end Randene and the woman from the SPCA have lost complete control of the dogs and themselves.
This Vancouver news program does an adopt-a-pet segment every Tuesday during their noon newscast, but it's usually much calmer than this.
Video is from Aug 11, 2009
News anchor Randene Neill is repeatedly and savagely licked, almost to death, by a pit bull named Ginger. So much for pit bull's nasty reputation. By the end Randene and the woman from the SPCA have lost complete control of the dogs and themselves.
This Vancouver news program does an adopt-a-pet segment every Tuesday during their noon newscast, but it's usually much calmer than this.
Video is from Aug 11, 2009
>> ^smooman:
i've never heard of tatooing on dogs. I'm inclined to think that it has something to do with neutering?
EDIT: for the pit bull, that is... the other one might be a bit dangerous.
Breed specific legislation is fucking asinine. It is completely about the owner.
Insurance is a different story. A bigger dog can do more damage, just like a faster/heavier car. Any car is unsafe in the hands of a bad driver.
The analysis seems to be very balanced and makes some interesting points. Everything from the larger size and power of pitbulls and rottweilers and the attraction they have to "asshole" owners, to the tendancy of pitbulls to not give warning before attacking.
Unfortunately the author couldn't come to any conclusion on how to deal with the more dangerous breeds other than breed-specific laws being unfair and hard to enforce, and to educate people of the possible risks associated with them, but I personally think that could apply to all medium to large breeds.
They eat their own poo.
that's downright efficient in my book
Yeah, I used to be of the opinion that Pit Bulls were "misunderstood" and hated on for no reason - it's the owner not the breed, right?
Well, then my basset hound got attacked by one. This wasn't a situation where my hound provoked anything, mind you - she was hiding under a chair. Next thing I know the pit's mouth is around her neck. I was punching this dog in the face and in the stomach as hard as I could and it would not let go. Luckily hounds have loose skin and after about 8 minutes or so the pit let go because it couldn't breathe after we covered its nostrils.
Was the pit mistreated when it was raised? Yes - the guy was a complete douche and bragged about keeping a bat around to deal with it (he also ran out on most of the medical costs for our dog).
But what if the guy had a miniature schnauzer instead? It wouldn't have ended up the way our situation did. It would still be unfortunate that the dog was mistreated and the guy deserved to have the bat taken to his head, but my dog wouldn't have been almost ripped to shreds.
Another thing that needs to be considered about pits is that they may be perfectly cool around humans or even most dogs, but you put them in a room with another dog that triggers something and they can snap.
Ban pits.
So here is my 'totally no pit bull in there' Rottweiler/Mastiff/Ridgeback cross Boomer...
http://i85.servimg.com/u/f85/11/45/02/64/dsc00210.jpg
She looks so vicious as well... =)
The first time I let my dog within biting distance of a friend's Pit, she got bitten really hard, even though the owners were my friends, the dog knew me, and everyone was gathered around urging the Pit to be calm as we introduced the dogs. No warning, their Pit just clamped on the fucking neck of my black lab. If not for an instantaneous and well-placed kick in the side of the face from the Pit's owner, my dog's jugular probably would have been ripped in two. I imagined how I would feel if it had been my niece or nephews, and came to this conclusion: FUCK PITBULLS.... just because they're licking your face one moment doesn't mean they're not going to eat it off you the first fuckign excuse you give them.
The other weak-ass part of Pit owners' argument is this: When a black lab or even a german shephard decides to bite a person, a second person of reasonable strength can rescue that first person from the dog (if the first person can't rescue themselves). This is not really the case with Pits, unless the third person is willing to put themselves at risk (by trying to "wheelbarrow" the Pit for instance), or become seriously violent and murderous in attacking the dog (by picking up a brick and bludgeoning it in the fucking skull).
I've never seen a dog not give an indication of their mood before attacking, there's always some sort of warning unless you manage to suprise the dog. Pretty much all animals need to be closely watched when being introduced to something new. As for the claims that Pit Bulls having some sort of magic immunity to pain, I've never seen it. Our dogs always reacted to a smack as you'd expect, but they also never attacked any people or pets... however my 12inch Chewbacca did meet his demise in the mouth of our Pit.
Go pursue an inane cause that doesn't require everyone around you to accept the premise that "don't worry, this bomb I bring everywhere won't go off while your kids are around. I'm a responsible bomb owner.
and my wife, when she was 4 years old, had her face half torn off by an old german sheppard who had been peaceful and friendly all it's life. Totally unexpected, she was playing with it as she had done many times before and it just turned, latched on and proceeded to eat the chunk of her left cheek it had removed.
Animals, like humans, can snap and there doesn't have to be any rhyme or reason to it. So feel free to shove your rhetoric up your ass where your head is already firmly planted.
Terriers of all types are known for their aggression and tenacity, THEY WERE ALL BRED FOR IT. Pit Bulls were bred for traits useful in dog fighting rings. Traits that do not "play well with others."
Just because your dog doesn't have those traits active, doesn't mean they're not there. Although, I bet more than a few people who had their Pit Bull "freak out for no reason" also thought it was really cool the dog routinely tore apart that tire swing in their back yard.
E.V.E.R.Y.O.N.E. who buys a Pit Bull is buying into that mystique. Don't fucking say otherwise, you KNOW it's true. You want to walk down the street and have people and their dogs move away from you. You want to be known as "that guy with the Pit Bull". There is no other reason to own THAT PARTICULAR BREED. There are other breeds with traits and looks that are equal to if not better than a Pit Bull.
"I own a Suzuki Hayabusa for the fuel mileage and to reduce my carbon footprint."
Bullshit.
"I own an Escalade for the improved road view."
Bullshit.
"I own a Pit Bull cuz they're so cuddly-wuddly."
Bullshit.
So much for the vicious breed. Yep. Tell that to the people who's kids have been killed by a pit bull. It's mostly the owner and not the dog, that's pretty obvious. Also obvious that if Pit Bull and Rottie breeds are responsible for 67% of the dog related deaths in the US, then maybe, just maybe, there's something up with the characteristics the breed(s) have been fostering.
Flawed reasoning i'm afraid. Statistical anomilies can be translated in a variety of different ways. Such as maybe...just maybe... certain breeds of dogs atrract certain breeds of assholes.
It's the assholes you need to ban, not the dogs.
And payback - all dogs have that instinct and streak in them. All dogs go batshit crazy from time to time - ALL OF THEM. It's just that some dogs are bigger than other dogs, and are capable of tearing a tire apart. Some are only capable of tearing your newspaper apart. Some of them are capable of tearing - unfortunately - a person/small child apart, and even more unfortunately, some get that opportunity.
And when that opportunity arises, and the dog has the batshit crazy moment, we end up with tragic results.
It's the asshole who owns the dog. I speak from a lifetime of dog experience and i will never be convinced otherwise.
My dog is the most placid lovely dog you could possibly hope to meet. He's a very very strong athletic and muscly chocolate lab. The other day he snapped at me for taking a bone away from him - i've NEVER heard him do that, ever, i've never seen that side of him. Like i've always said - i could trust my dog with a baby, i'd be almost 100% certain he'd never attack a baby. BUT WHY WOULD YOU?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#United_States_Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention_.282000.29
It's a side effect of being sentient and breed/owner/genetic disposition/upbringing/whatever, shit happens.
Per the above study over 50% of dog bite related fatalities in the US between 1979 and 1998 were caused by Pit Bulls and Rottweiler type dogs. That being said Dannym is right in that statistics can be skewed by unidentified factors. Its difficult in a study of dog attacks to determine that X% of the owners involved also had meth labs or were training the dogs for fighting or were just simply morons. However, even if you could identify all such factors I think you would find that the type of owner does not have a statistically significant effect on the numbers. We've all seen those news broadcasts where the owners try to defend their dog and in my experience the majority seem to be average people. And what do they all say? "My sweetie-pie has always been a gentle and affectionate dog, I don't understand how this could happen" or "That three year old must have done something to provoke her" Its all bullshit anyways. The only control or regulation that could possibly have any possible effect on the numbers is to ban the breed. Difficult to enforce but a hell of a lot easier than any attempt to control who can or cannot own one.