Pit bull licks source of flesh eating bacteria

[madmusic]

Los Angeles (Hooters) Dermatologists at the UCLA School of Medicine confirm the source of flesh eating bacteria is the tongue of Pit Bulls.

"We have long sought the source of the painful and ugly disease. The bacteria can eat the skin of an adult in days. A small child only has a few hours in some cases," said Dr. Panic, the lead researcher in the study.

Flesh eating bacteria, Vibrio Vulnificus in medical terms, was once thought to incubate in stagnant water. Swimmers were warned to avoid swimming in water that was not clear and moving.

"We found that pit bulls taken on vacation or family outings will drink this water. When they subsequently lick their owners they infect them. Birds of a feather. The two predators, the bacteria and the Pit Bull, go on a crime spree."

"That's nonsense," says Dr. Silberman. "Licking is not a crime and is not dangerous. This study is flawed due to the small population sample. Dr. Panic based his conclusion on 5 cases he read in the newspaper."

"We suggest Dr. Silberman take a Pit Bull to Jefferson County and let it drink from the Beaumont Pond. Once the dog licks him, the experiment will eat away at him until he is dead," Dr. Panic countered.

EDIT: Dr. Panic countered.

[Cocoa]

1. pit bull attacks are not our country's #1 priority

but they are serious.

This discussion was started because of the death of a 71-year-old woman.

[madmusic]

3. And as tragic as that is...

Killing every Pit Bull will not bring her back to life.

Moral panics suck.

[Cocoa]

5. but a ban on pit bulls might have prevented her death

it's about safety, not morality.

[madmusic]

9. Definition

Moral Panic

A sudden increase in public perception of the possible threat to societal values and interests because of exposure to media texts.

[Cocoa]

13. I think it's a real danger

you think it's a moral panic.

How do we resolve this conflict?

Given the death of 71-year-old Jimmie May McConnell, I would suggest being serious would be the start.

[madmusic]

39. Good question, and there is a real danger.

Obviously, this poor woman was mauled. Even if already dead during most of it, it is still terrifying. Because it paints a vivid picture, it is all the more emotional.

That is perfectly understandable.

I've been serious in other threads and thought is would be interesting to discuss "moral panic" itself. Hence the connection with licks and the "flesh eating bacteria," another moral panic. Both are real dangers.

But the media thrives on keeping us scared. What is interesting is that we can see BushCo's use of fear mongering and how he keeps his power by doing that, or used to. Most voters are on to him now. On the other hand, we too often fail to see the same media manipulations with other issues.

A threat can be real, but overreaction to a real threat can make it a moral panic. By definition, "overreaction" is irrational and goes beyond an effective/just solution. It uses scapegoating and attacks the innocent or at least the less guilty. In the spoof, that would be dogs whose only crime was licking their owners.

I think the solution is already written into our Constitution: the punishment should fit the crime and cannot be cruel and unusual. There should be a fair hearing to determine if a dog is actually dangerous or not. The fallacy of "the part equals the whole" has no place in our Constitution, and though dogs are not protected by the Bill of Rights, in an enlightened society, we consider it unjust to punish someone, or a dog, for the actions of another. That's just fair play.

Blaming all Pit Bulls for the actions of a few would be like sentencing every drunk driver the same as one who commits manslaughter. We would not stand for that. In this instance, the dog will be put to death and the owner is charged with a crime. In short, the system is working.

If interested, you can find a discussion of "moral panic" here:

http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.jw.panic.shtml

P.S. Once Pit Bulls start to become extinct, they may end up on the endangered species list. :)

EDIT: typo

[BrklynLiberal]

47. The owners need to be held VERY responsible for actions of their pets.

I hope it is more than just a slap on the wrist, since the dog is paying with its life. There is little doubt in my mind that the behavior of the dog is totally the owner's fault. It would be as if he were driving drunk and hit that woman with his car and killed her.

[madmusic]

54. And he will probably be treated as severely.

Maybe even worse because they will make an example out of him for the deterrent effect.

But should we punish all other Pit Bull owners the same as him for his crime? Obviously, that would be absurd and unjust. Same with the other dogs.

Speaking of absurd:

'Pet police, ma'am. Just checking you haven't put the cat out tonight
By Sam Coates
Government guidelines will tell owners exactly how they must care for their pets


CATS, dogs and other family pets are to have five statutory “freedoms” enshrined in law — and owners who flout the regulations could face jail or a fine of up to £5,000 after a visit from the “pet police”.

The Times has learnt that Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, is to produce detailed codes of conduct telling pet owners how to feed their animals and where they should go to the toilet, along with ways of providing “mental stimulation”. Owners of “sociable” pets should provide them with playmates, the codes will say.

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,263362,00.gif

More:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2015978,00.html

In any event, I find the use of moral panics in our punitive society fascinating. For example:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1447

[BrklynLiberal]

16. How about we execute the owners of every pit bull in the US???

After all, if there were no owners, there would be no bad dogs.

[madmusic]

58. Then we would have latchkey dogs

Roaming the streets and forming gangs.

[BrklynLiberal]

68. We could put Pickles in charge of reforming them.

[LeftyMom]

15. Does prohibition of anything work?

Drugs are illegal, yet plentiful. People OD all the damn time.

The limit on the freeway by my house is 65 mph. Nobody drives the limit except in nasty weather or heavy traffic.

Ever watch Miami Animal Police on Animal Planet? Pit bulls are illegal there. People still have pitties. I saw an episode once where they took an old lady's dog (who seemed very very sweet) away to be killed just for being a pit. Seems like more often the families move to neighboring counties where thier dogs are legal or move the dog in with friends (I'm guessing they move it back when nobody's looking anymore) but the old woman didn't have the resources to do so, so she lost her companion and the dog lost it's life.

Pitties are illegal in the UK too. Need I mention that plenty of people still have them?

Breed bans are stupid. Pit bulls (actually several similar breeds but nobody bothers to notice) are not especially large or agressive dogs. Thier largest temprament problem is that they tend to be a bit on the needy, whiny side. They need a lot of socialization and don't do well kept in the back yard alone all day. When neglected (this is already an illegal human behavior) or abused (ditto) they can couse trouble, but this is true of many animals and of humans as well. The only difference is that pits are plentiful and because people are conditioned to be aftaid of them thier misbehaviors sell papers. Make them illegal and you'll make criminals of many loving families and problem dogs out of previously well behaved animals now hidden and deprived of socialization. Meanwhile the dog fighters, the drug dealers and the tweakers will either keep thier pitties- after all what's breaking one more law when you do so habitually- or graduate to dogs that really are big and scary and dangerous.

[Cocoa]

17. I think banning pit bulls could work

instead of "making criminals of loving families," it could cause loving families to choose a less dangerous breed of dog.

[LeftyMom]

22. Given the choice between killing thier dog and concealing it

most families would go with concealing it. I think. I hope. Meanwhile already stretched-thin animal control resources get devoted to handling calls about every dog in town that looks vaugely like a pit bull, wasting officers' time, making life realy fun for the owners of lazy, mild mannered boxers and taking precious time and money away from the neglect cases and the dog fighting investigations. Who the hell does that scenario benefit?

[Cocoa]

24. what about families that don't have the dog yet?

the ones that are still choosing their dog.

Would they choose an illegal dog and hide it? Doubtful, imo.

Regarding the use of resources, you bring up valid points. The cost of enforcing the laws should be considered as well as the benefits.

[BrklynLiberal]

26. Resources would be better spent on finding and incarceratng those

that breed and torture animals to turn them into killers.
No dog is born a killer. They become vicious and aggressive thru fear and abuse at the hands of people. In most cases that abuse is intentional.

[LeftyMom]

31. Some of them will

My best friend has a wolf hybrid. He was utterly illegal to posess in CA without an exotic animal liscence. He's utterly illegal to have where she lives now. He was illegal when she got him. Nevertheless, he's never missed a vet appointment (Her vet, who is not an idiot and knows perfectly well what he is, has him listed as a malamute in records. This is apparently a common tactic for circumventing wolf hybrid bans. I suspect a lot of pits will be listed as boxer mixes or something in places where they are banned.) always been registered and is exceedingly gentle with other animals, with cats and with children. I've watched him let babies tug on his ears and tail without complaint and I've watched him carry exploring kittens back to thier mother in his mouth. But he's an illegal and supposedly dangerous animal who, after six years of gentle and loving behavior, could be taken away and killed at any moment, should the local animal control office get wind of his existance.

[Cocoa]

34. that sounds incredibly dangerous

I know people don't like judging their best friends, but doesn't it seem a little unsafe that they would let babies tug on the ears of a wolf hybrid?

[LeftyMom]

40. She has other dogs (rescued from neglect after the damage was done)

that she won't allow around kids, so she's not one of those people who sees all animals through rose colored glasses. She's one of those people who is extrordinarily good with animals and he's exceedingly well trained and socialized. He has both a gentle temprament and an awareness that event he lowliest human in the house ranks above him in the pack heirarchy.

He's been around babies from day one, first with my friend's much younger siblings and then with her step-kids and her friends' kids as we started having them. He's never shown a hint of agression or impatience with children. As they tug on him and play roughly his tail wags and he plays happily. If he showed any hint of impatience we'd keep him away from kids, which wouldn't be a huge imposition as my friend has none of her own.

My kid's played with him a million times, an idea that made me a bit nervous at first, but now I'd trust him more than I would pretty much any creature of less fearsome repute. He's quite gentle with children. I have pics around here someplace of him trick or treating with my son. We took them to friends' houses where by advance arrangement my son got healthy treats and he got some dog snacks and a fast food hamburger.

[BrklynLiberal]

35. That is because your friend is a kind, caring and responsible caretaker.

Even the nicest animal can be made into an agressive, dangerous animal if mistreated and tortured.
That is what some people just refuse to understand. It is not necessarily inherent in the dog to be mean and agressive. Some people choose certain dogs in order to bring out the worst in them thru torture and cruelty because they want people to be afraid and intimidated when they walk down the street, or because they get some perverted pleasure out of torturing a weak animal. This is not the fault of the animal. It is the sick, perverted person who is to blame.

[ronnie624]

57. Any adult who allows babies

to tug on the ears of a large, potentially dangerous predator has a tenuous grasp of reality at best, and virtually no understanding of animal behavior. Hopefully, you and your friend will not be coldly introduced to reality one day in a most horrific manner.

I don't mean to seem snappish, but I have little tolerance for those who endanger the lives of children through deliberately self-imposed ignorance.

[LeftyMom]

64. Gee, that's funny.

You've never met me, my friend or any of her animals, yet you find yourself qulified to question both our grasp on reality, our understanding of animals, and my parenting skills.

Were you slightly familiar with my posts you'd know that I have one exceptionally well protected, if somewhat spoiled, kid, that he rides in a carseat that cost more than the car we had when I was a kid, that I feed him a very good diet, that I'm very cautious in leaving him with other caregivers and that he's quite healthy and happy. I would never take undue risks with the health or safety of LeftyKid, and the idea that a stranger would suggest that I have is just mindblowing.

Had you seen previous posts about my friend and her animals you'd know that she's taken in and rehabilitated abused and neglected dogs since she was a kid and that she effects amazing turnarounds with them by being both loving and very firm while lavishing them with time and attention. I have also mentioned that she's extrordinary with kids and that I think it's a damn shame that she can't have any of her own, but fortunate for all the other kids and animals who benefit from her patience and love.

So really, the next time you're going to criticize someone, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about first.

[ronnie624]

66. In no way do I question

the sincerity of you or your friend, only your judgment with regard to animal behavior based on a post by you stating that your friend allows babies to tug on the ears of a potentially dangerous predator with large teeth and jaws, and the ability to tear a small child to pieces in a matter of seconds, that's all.

And you may rest assured that I am quite familiar with the postings of anyone on this message board who has more than 13,000 posts.

Good day to you.

[OnionPatch]

75. I've had my dog

who is probably a mix, but most obviously looks like a pit-bull, to different kennels, veterinarians, etc. and every time they ask what breed, I tell them I think she's a pit-bull/lab mix. Every single time, without exception, the person wrote down "lab-mix" and left the pit-bull part out. (I didn't ask any of them to do that.) :shrug:

[johnaries]

59. They are banned where that 71-year-od woman was killed.

Like I've said before, the Breed Specific Laws don't help the problem.

[BrklynLiberal]

18. How many people are killed by guns in this country each year?

How many are killed by drunk drivers?

Where are the laws to prohibit either of those activities?

Instead of prohibiting a breed, perhaps we should go further to prohibit animal cruelty, including dog fighting and puppy mills. Those are among the things that lead to "dangerous" animals. Both of these practices are promulgated by MAN.

As far as I am concerned, the most dangerous animal on this planet is MAN.

[Cocoa]

20. many cities have anti-gun laws

and every state has drunk driving laws.

[BrklynLiberal]

21. and it really helps, doesn't it?

[Cocoa]

23. that's a complicated question

from the "methods" section of one CDC report on gun laws:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

* developing an approach to organizing, grouping, and selecting the interventions to be reviewed;
* systematically searching for and retrieving evidence;
* assessing the quality of and summarizing the strength of the body of evidence of effectiveness;
* assessing cost and cost-effectiveness evidence, identifying applicability and barriers to implementation (if the effectiveness of the intervention has been established);
* summarizing information regarding evidence of other effects; and
* identifying and summarizing research gaps.

[BrklynLiberal]

25. In a word, the laws DO NOT WORK.

Making something illegal only makes people do what they want to do illegally.
Banning a breed will accomplish nothing positive. The very least is that those that want vicious dogs around them will turn to another breed to torture and make into killers.

[Cocoa]

27. are you against DUI laws as well?

[BrklynLiberal]

29. I am not against DUI laws, but if you remember, Prohibition did not last

You cannot ban a breed, but you can try to encourage responsible breeding, ownership and training of ALL dogs.


Should we ban all cars that kill people or should we teach people to drive responsibly?

[Cocoa]

30. why aren't you against DUI laws?

[BrklynLiberal]

33. Explain the analogy of DUI laws and banning a breed.

I am not against banning sports cars from the road, even tho they are the ones that are involved in most accidents.
I am not against making all alcohol illegal.

I am for taking responsibliliy for that which we choose to be involved in. That includes the training and discipline of a dog for whose life we are responsible. I am not for banning a breed just because some morons prefer to use it to prove they are macho and torture and abuse it for that end. The abusers should be punished, not the dogs.

How about we ban ALL BIG cars, BIG cigars, BIG guns, and everything else that is used by mankind to prove something to others about themselves?

[Cocoa]

36. you brought it up in post #18

you asked, How many are killed by drunk drivers?

It appeared to be a rhetorical question challenging the effectiveness of laws in preventing bad things.

If you weren't challenging the effectiveness of DUI laws, then explain your point in asking "How many are killed by drunk drivers?"

[BrklynLiberal]

43. I actually meant laws to ban alcohol and guns.

DUI laws are actually positive. They are analagous to forcing more responsible dog ownership.
Stricter gun laws would do the same thing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Do laws against stealing reduce the rate of theft?

If stealing is outlawed, only outlaws will steal.
:crazy:

When the violent dog trainers must resort to trying to turn labs and collies into trained killers, we'll have made progress.

[johnaries]

50. Pit Bulls ARE banned in Kansas City. The ban didn't save her. nt

[Cocoa]

62. the ban would have to be enforced sufficiently

it was reported that the victim had reported the dogs a number of times.

In response to her death, the city stepped up enforcement and took other steps, and her family says that's good but they wish they had done it sooner.

[johnaries]

70. Then the owner would have gotten another breed and abused it,

and it would have been just as likely to have jumped the fence and attack her.

After the previous abuse, the owner should not have been allowed to have any kind of dog. Period.

[BrklynLiberal]

72. After the previous abuse, the owner should have already been in jail...

[BrklynLiberal]

53. Ban on pit bulls was already in effect in her community

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1769729&mesg_id=1770751

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. But it would prevent the death of the next one.

The humane solution isn't euthanizing the breed, it's sterilizing them.

The pit bull puppy mills should go into a new line of work, like terriers.

[LeftyMom]

46. Pit bulls are terriers. nt

[johnaries]

61. Right. American Pit Bull TERRIER is their full name. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

71. I think it is American Staffordshire Terrier or American Staffordshire

Bull Terrier.

http://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/index.cfm

http://www.akc.org/breeds/staffordshire_bull_terrier/index.cfm
Temperament for Bull Terrier
From the past history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the modern dog draws its character of indomitable courage, high intelligence, and tenacity. This, coupled with its affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes it a foremost all-purpose dog.

[johnaries]

28. It wasn't a Pit Bull that killed her.

It was a Presa Canrio.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1767603&mesg_id=1767965

[Cocoa]

32. where does that info come from?

that post you linked to doesn't say how they know this.

[johnaries]

49. OK, I may have been wrong. After more research, it was Diane

Whipple who was killed by a Presa Caario incorrectly identified as a Pit Bull at first.

But, again, most of these reports incorrectly identify other breeds as Pit Bulls. Therefore, a ban on Pit Bulls is useless.

But look at this report:
http://www.kshb.com/kshb/nw_local_news/article/0,1925,KSHB_9424_4875312,00.html

KANSAS CITY, Kan. – The Kansas City, Kan. home where police found the pit bull that killed a 71-year-old woman on Thursday has had pit bull problems before.

Police say in June, 2004, Animal Control took two pit bulls from the house in the 3100 block of Longwood. One dog was dead and the other emaciated. The second dog was euthanized.

Officials say that house had been condemned due to a lack of utilities. However, someone was keeping two pit bulls there again, and Thursday, Jimmie May McConnell, a grand mother, singer and gardener, lost her life when one of the dogs got into her yard and attacked her.

Neighbors say McConnell had complained to the city about the dogs and that she said she was concerned for her safety.

So,
A. The owner abused his dogs, so the breed had nothing to do with the attack.
B. Kansas already has a ban on Pit Bulls, and it still didn't help her.

[BrklynLiberal]

51. So once again, it goes back to the cruelty of the owners of the dogs..

One can only hope that the owner/s are prosecuted as if they struck down this woman with their own hands.
Perhaps if the examples are set, and those people who abuse animals, and do not act responsibly in controlling them, are punished severely enough, others will stop abusing animals and using them as insturments to satisfy their own perverted needs to destroy and torture.
It is a tragedy that innocent people have to die or be maimed in order for this to finally happen.

[johnaries]

56. Yes. The owner should be tried for Manslaughter.

I oppose the death penalty, but I hope he gets Life.

[LeftyMom]

45. That's talking about the dogs that killed Dianne Whipple in SF a few years

ago. Those were pressa canarios bred by people who were affiliated with a white supremacist prison gang. Two common threads in these scenarios show up in that case: the first is that violent people create violent animals, the second is that unaltered dogs are much more dangerous than those that have been spayed or neutered.

Training and handling was also an issue in that case. Apparently the owners took thier sweet time in calling the dogs off of the woman, probably because they disliked her for her orientation.

[Gormy Cuss]

48. No, the SF case mentioned in that post was from 2001

Diane Whipple was mauled to death by two Presa Canarios.

(haven't seen enough about the recent death of the 71 year old to know whether they have a positive ID on breed.)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. pit bulls are AYErab terra-ists in fur.

WE need to lick them there, before they lick us here.

[ret5hd]

4. We need to lick them THERE (where?)...

Before they lick us HERE!

[madmusic]

6. Damn, is that real?

Guess it must be, but how does he fit it in his mouth? Or is it PhotoShop?

[ret5hd]

7. Darned if i know...

just found it on google images -- "dog lick" without the quotes...

but don't do it, trust me. just don't. there's more dogs lickin' more things than i ever wanted to know about.

[madmusic]

55. LOL, I'll take your word for it.

For now, anyway.

[Philosoraptor]

8. Jimmie May McConnell's Funeral is this Wednesday.

she lived to be seventy and one years of age, and was killed by her stupid neighbor's stupid dog.

Make jokes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Yes these threads are quite disgusting

I had someone today ask how I was sure it was a pit bull and not another kind of dog. So now I guess the breed is more important than the fact that the woman DIED???? And if it turns out it was not a pit bull, how does that change the story? Will Mrs. McConnell come back to life??

Some days DU is heartless and disgusting.

[Philosoraptor]

14. She was a real person, who died horribly, and needlessly.

But then, this is humor, like you hear on certain bloviated right wing radio shows.

[Cocoa]

19. "she was a jewel"

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/15140585.htm

<snip>

McConnell raised six children with her late husband, Johnnie McConnell, a former deacon at Mount Zion Baptist Church. The two were well-known throughout the community for their family and strong faith.

When her children left home, McConnell took in several foster children. She also worked as a crossing guard, making sure children at Christ the King and Welborn Elementary made it to and from school safely, said her daughter, Shirley Barner.

“She was a jewel,” Barner said. “She was someone that you always wanted to be around. She could hold a conversation with a total stranger.”

The sentiments were echoed by the Rev. C.L. Bachus, her pastor at Mount Zion.

“She was just a fine, great Christian lady who enjoyed life and was a good member of our church. We all loved her,” Bachus said.

McConnell checked in with Bachus this week to see where he had been Sunday when another pastor filled in at Mount Zion.

“We were laughing and joking and playing about some things,” he said.

more...

[johnaries]

42. I think that was me, and I think any needless death is tragic.

But my point was that banning Pit Bulls would not have made any difference if it was not a Pit Bull that killed her. Most dogs identified as Pit Bulls in dog attacks are, in fact, not Pit Bulls but simply look like one. So, banning all Pit Bulls does no good.

That's what I was saying. I'm not saying her death wasn't a tragedy. I'm just saying that "euthanizing" harmless dogs just because of their breed is another tragedy and won't help the problem.

[madmusic]

67. And any other scary dog may have caused her heart attack.

A tragedy for sure, but overreaction will not bring her back to life. We would have to outlaw every scary dog to prevent this. Since some people are scared of every dog, often for good reason, that might include every dog in the United States.

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. Banning them didn't help this woman

They are already banned in the city where she died.

Clearly, something must be done to make sure this never happens again. This discussion should be about what works, not what won't work.

It would also be encouraging to see a few more sympathetic posts. It seems pretty cold to see posters actually defending these dogs.

[johnaries]

37. No jokes. Her death is a tragedy. But would banning all Pit Bulls

have saved her? NO. As you said, she had a stupid neighbor.

[LWolf]

60. The joke is not about her death,

a senseless tragedy brought about by irresponsible human stewardship.

It's a joke about the mass pitbull hysteria that, incidentally, closely resembles human efforts to instill fear and aggression against nations, ethnicities, faiths, and other groups of people.

[madmusic]

65. Thank you. That is exactly it.

What do you think people get out of it? What motivates them? Often it is for very moral and humane reasons that go haywire.

Forwarding one of those false and alarming emails about this or that seems to be similar. Before we know it, the email spreads everywhere and only by visiting snopes.com can we sort it out.

Fascinating stuff.

[BrklynLiberal]

10. What a crock of crapola.......

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Link?

[stepnw1f]

44. Dr. Panic.... Come ON!

Is this a joke?

[billyskank]

78. Sounds like a wind-up to me

[alarimer]

52. I doubt this is true

Vibrio is endemic to warm water. Every year we get a few cases here in Texas in people who are wade-fishing with an open sore. Bacteria enter the wound and infect the person. Nothing to do with pit bulls at all (do they even drink salt water??). People have died but the masssive hysteria regarding Vibrio in the local media is akin to shark hysteria in other years. Way overblown, as is the hysteria over West Nile virus. Most of the people who suffer with vibrio (as with West Nile) have compromised immune systems. Most of the rest of us have no problems. I have had repeated exposure to both with no problems (not that that proves anything one way or another) but reasonable precautions are good. One guy in my office (an anal-retentive safety officer) insists that we should wear neoprene waders in the SUMMER (95+ degrees out) to prevent exposure to vibrio! In that case, I foresee a rise in worker's compensation claims for HEATSTROKE!

While I have problems with some owners of pit bulls, I don't think banning the breed is necessary.

[Mythsaje]

63. Okay, this thread officially PISSES ME OFF

I work in dog rescue. I have for years. One of the FINEST fosters I had was a 100 lb American Staffordshire Terrier, AKA a PIT BULL. He was unfailingly gentle with even the smallest member of our household. I have a story about him on my pet page of my website. His name is Char and he's a canine Good Citizen. One of the sweetest dogs I've ever known. And some of the posters on this thread would cheer if he'd been killed rather than placed in a good home just because of his breed. Someone tied him up outside a store where an acquaintance was working and simply walked away. He called us because the local humane society DOES NOT adopt out pits. If they went to the shelter, they died.

Well, fuck that.

The PROBLEM with some dog owners is that they're ignorant enough to believe that if they socialize their animal, that animal will no longer be the kind of protector they need to defend their homes. This is a totally uneducated, ignorant position that LEADS to this sort of trouble. Dogs are territorial, and most are quite aware of the difference between people who can and cannot be within the alpha's (the human's) territory without being accompanied by the alpha. Dogs are smarter than people give them credit for.

FUCKING STUPID people shouldn't own dogs. PERIOD. They shouldn't even be allowed AROUND dogs.

:nuke:

[johnaries]

69. APPLAUSE!

:applause:

[BrklynLiberal]

73. Exactly right!!!

:applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo:

Stupid, cruel people create abused dogs that are agressive, poorly controlled and can be dangerous. The dog pays with its life, as do the potential victims. It is the abuser who must be made to pay the price for this abuse. THESE STUPID PEOPLE are the reason for the problem...not the dogs!!

[Dangerously Amused]

77. Well said.

Thank you for adding a voice of reason and clarifying the issue.

[Joe Fields]

74. I heard that Pit Bulls were also responsible for snakes on a plane!

[madmusic]

76. Their dog chow? n/t

[Dangerously Amused]

80. Is this post a joke on fellow DUers? Cite your source, please.

Honestly, this sounds like something The Onion would print:


Why the reference to Hooters?

"Dr. Panic" makes the argument that Pit Bulls licking their owners is "long sought" "source of the painful and ugly disease." I highly doubt that this is the one and only source of the waterborne disease, and I can't imagine a credible medical professional making such an idiotic claim.

"Dr. Panic" draws the conclusion that ONLY Pit Bulls drink contaminated water, and other breeds do not.

"Dr. Panic" suggests that a peer who disagrees with him should be put to death. Once again, I cannot imagine any credible medical professional put his or her professional reputation on the line by making such an unprofessional statement.


I see the OP has changed his thread. The responses to this thread suggest that the OP originally contained a serious article about Pit Bulls and the controversy that surrounds them. However, the thread (since what I presume to be the subject matter change) now looks like a bunch of DUers taking what is clearly meant to be a satirical article as legitimate, and being "panicked" and reactionary without checking their sources.

I question whether this thread was intentionally edited to cast DUers in a bad light.

[mvd]

81. Locking

Let's not fan the flames, please..

mvd
DU Moderator