1 « 7 8  10 11 » 27
i assume you're referring to the comment that there's no reason to think that a Pit Bull's bite is any stronger than any other dog of similar size? as far as i know, bite strength cannot be measured.Sure it can there are a zillion biologists and dentist-types (looking at stuff like bruxism) doing it. I don't know enough about it to know what the problems are, but I suspect with dogs you'd have problems consistently reading the force in the same place in the mouth (I'd want to choose a particular tooth, for example, for comparable measurements across individuals/breeds). And then there's training the dog to bite the measurement instrument and whether that correlates to how hard a dog would bite in a fight or attack, etc.

I was only able to find one abstract regarding measurement of bite force in dogs (after a very cursory Pubmed search) so it could be that no one is doing it but it doesn't mean it isn't possible. It seems like it would rank among one of the more simple engineering questions to answer.
Here's the abstract:
J Vet Dent. 1995 Jun;12(2):49-52.
Measurement of bite force in dogs: a pilot study.
Lindner DL, Marretta SM, Pijanowski GJ, Johnson AL, Smith CW. Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801, USA.
A force transducer was developed to measure bite force in dogs. A total of 101 readings was obtained from 22 pet dogs ranging in size from 7 to
55 kg. Bite forces ranged from 13 to 1394 Newtons with a mean for alldogs of 256 Newtons and a median of 163 Newtons. Most measurements fell within the low end of the range, with 55% of the biting episodes less than 200 Newtons and 77% less than 400 Newtons.
There was also an interesting-looking article about measuring bite force in rats. They were apparently really easy to train to bite harder by rewarding them for harder bites on the measurement apparatus.

considering the huge range of body type found in Pit Bulls, i don't see why not. not all of them have humongous, heavy, broad skulls. many of them have much finer bone structure than the typical Lab (or at least, the Labs i see locally).

It's not the thickness of the bone, it's the size of the muscles and the shape of the skull. Yes, there is variation in pits and obviously some of them are not as extreme as others, but in general their heads are one of the most recognizable things about them. There isn't a lot about their postcranial morphology that makes someone say "pit" but their heads tend to be much less variable (note, I didn't say invariable, I said less variable) than the rest of their bodies, which makes sense given what they were selected for.
i suspect you're looking at a pretty small percentage of the overall Pit Bull population, if it's the stereotypical "big head dawgz" you're referring to.
Trust me, I see plenty of pits. Did you forget where I live?

Melanie Lee Chang > Form ever follows function. Departments of Anthropology and Biology >
University of Pennsylvania > Louis Sullivan (Email Removed) >
One bizarre aspect to this story is that the guy ... dogs back. I don't understand that, something has to change.

Nope. Not gonna happen. The city is making an application to the province to have the dogs put down. Chances are very good it will succeed seeing as how it is the second time (!!) that these dogs have been involved in something like this.

By the way, while the headlines say these dogs are pit bulls, if you read the story, you'll see that they're actually BULL MASTIFFS.

Tracy
Chances are very good it will succeed seeing as how ... that these dogs have been involved in something like this.

Whatta jerk. Twice in something like two months.

Yep. The OWNER ought to be facing euthanasia, too.

TRACY
I think the real problem is the damage the dogs tend to do, not the frequency of bites. It's the ... low. Poodles probably bite more than pits (I guess it'd be more) but they don't rip off the bitee's faces.

You don't think so? Haven't read much, have you. Do yourself a favor and invest $20 and buy the book on this website:
http://www.fataldogattacks.com
Since you're advocating DEATH to many thousands of innocent dogs, you might as well make yourself an expert on the subject - or at least a quasi-expert, having read at least one book on the subject.
Add that to the fact that pitbulls so often end up paired with idjits..and you just can't legislate idiocy out of existence.

Unfortunately, true.
I realize that responsible dog owners like you are likely the majority but when you have an animal that's very dangerous given the right conditions ...

And what conditions would those be?
you have two choices - eliminate those conditions (very, very difficult)

Assuming that only pit bulls are "dangerous" under certain conditions , why would they be so difficult to avoid? Untrained, unsocialized dogs are the most dangerous of any breed. Raising them RIGHT isn't so hard. Supervising around children, especially babies - a must for ANY dog. Not chaining a dog outside for its life. Training it. Teaching it that aggression toward people is NOT ACCEPTIBLE.
or eliminate the animal (fairly simple). That's not a literal thing - no pitbulls currently owned by Ontarians will be destroyed, it's just that nobody will be allowed to bring new pits into the population. No doggie holocaust.

That's what you think! The shelters are already filling up with people dumping their dogs because they're afraid of what the neighbors will say, or can't afford high-risk homeowner's insurance. The anti-dog (not JUST pit bulls) sentiments are running high and vigilanteism is already getting out of control. Here are just a few stories: http://www.goodpooch.com/attackreports.htm
So far as the 'media darlings' thing, I am not sure if all dog attacks other than pitbull attacks get ... or child or even adult, the damage done is pretty spectacular compared to the damage done by the family poodle.

Poodles have killed, too. Would their victims be any less dead?
This is just Jean Q. Public's impression, so I guess all things considered I'm not against the pitbull ban.

Please read the book so you at least know something about the subject.

Tracy
I think the real problem is the damage the dogs ... be more) but they don't rip off the bitee's faces.

You don't think so? Haven't read much, have you. Do yourself a favor and invest $20 and buy the book on this website: http://www.fataldogattacks.com

No, I haven't read much, you're right - and thanks for the recommendation.
Since you're advocating DEATH to many thousands of innocent dogs, you might as well make yourself an expert on the subject - or at least a quasi-expert, having read at least one book on the subject.

I'm not advocating the death of any dog - the Ontario ban does not require that pit bulls who live here now would be euthanized.

Living with idiots, abused, improperly cared for, no training...
you have two choices - eliminate those conditions (very, very difficult)

Assuming that only pit bulls are "dangerous" under certain conditions , why would they be so difficult to avoid? Untrained, ... dog. Not chaining a dog outside for its life. Training it. Teaching it that aggression toward people is NOT ACCEPTIBLE.

Yes, I agree.
or eliminate the animal (fairly simple). That's not a literal ... to bring new pits into the population. No doggie holocaust.

That's what you think! The shelters are already filling up with people dumping their dogs because they're afraid of what ... bulls) sentiments are running high and vigilanteism is already getting out of control. Here are just a few stories: http://www.goodpooch.com/attackreports.htm

I'll read it.
See the thing is, all of you who have said that I'm not well informed are correct, but if you look at me as having made assumptions as opposed to being a "lying dog abusing choweard", I'd appreciate it.

Okay. I will.
Thanks,
LF
Don't get all petulant, I have a job and my network connection is down today so I'm posting maniacally. I probably owe a few other people replies as well, I know it's rude not to reply but sometimes life intrudes.

it's not that you cherry picked which posts to reply to c'est las Usernets. it's what you chose to reply to within specific posts. for example, instead of discussing something meaningful to the topic at hand (why some dogs are considered cute and harmless while others are not and whether or not that contributes to people's willingness to ban those "not so cute" breeds), you've chosen to discuss my attitude. okey dokey, then, attitude is what you'll get, because i'll be damned if i'll be arsed to go to the trouble of researching and writing a rational response for someone who isn't going to read it.
You're smart but you ooze hostility, Shelly.

pot. kettle. black. smooches

shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette>> http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com

Pain has its reasons, pleasure is totally indifferent. Francis Picabia
But they have been. The state-wide bill in New Mexico that was defeated would have automatically labelled any Boxer a dangerous dog.

yep. Boxers (along with anything that "resembles" a "Pit Bull type" dog) are frequently the targets of BSL. but, i think that's irrelevant. the underlying assumption that as long as it's "only" Pit Bulls that are being band, it's okay is, well, not okay. i find the "any breed but mine" mentality perplexing.

shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette>> http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com

I'm not afraid of storms, for I'm learning to sail my ship. Louisa May Alcott
And then there's training the dog to bite the measurement instrument and whether that correlates to how hard a dog would bite in a fight or attack, etc.

that alone may be an insurmountable obstacle to ever getting a meaningful measurement of bite strength.
from what i can tell, Dr. Brisbin is generally considered to be a reasonably reliable expert. according to him: "To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparisons to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of 'pounds per square inch' can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data."
(food for thought snipped)
J Vet Dent. 1995 Jun;12(2):49-52. Measurement of bite force in dogs: a pilot study. Lindner DL, Marretta SM, Pijanowski GJ, Johnson AL, Smith CW. Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801, USA.

interesting! i'll have to see if i can get my hands on the article.
Trust me, I see plenty of pits. Did you forget where I live?

heh. true! and, i suppose i may see an inordinate ratio of small, not-so-bulky Pit Bulls. the ones i tend to run into locally are, if anything, much lighter in bone and musculature than the typical local Labs.

shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette>> http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com

O! for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention.
William Shakespeare
from what i can tell, Dr. Brisbin is generally considered to be a reasonably reliable expert. according to him: "To ... such data describing biting power in terms of 'pounds per square inch' can never be collected in a meaningful way.

As a nerd, it seems to me the problem here is "meaningful" rather than "data collection." I think you certainly could collect data, although it would be difficult, but there would be problems around tooth structure and size (we all know about little pin-sharp puppy teeth, right?), biting behavior (chomping versus slashing), and other factors that would make it hard to turn the data into something that's usefully descriptive.
As a sort of a related thing, today I was poking around looking for information on insurance and dogs and found an article in an insurance trade rag that described the factor they're trying to protect themselves against is bite damage rather than bite incidence. That is to say that they tend to look unfavorably on dogs whose bites tend to cause serious injuries rather than ones that bite a lot, which is why you don't see, say, Cocker Spaniels on insurance company won't-cover breed lists. Not directly relevant to this discussion but what the heck - I thought it was interesting.

Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - (Email Removed)

"(Social Security) will be bust in 10 years" George Bush, in 1978
Show more