Florida Cop executes family dog

[ocre]

httphttp://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/German-Shepherd-Attacks-Central-Texas-Toddler-303006621.html://abc30.com/news/german-sheperd-awaiting-its-fate-after-attacking-8-year-old-boy/1060492/
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dog-pu...k7cva.html
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/2...e-them-off
http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/features/top-...jekWLerSUk

and on and on and on

We've all been guilty of this at one point. We see a negative news story published about a pit bull, or an attack that was supposedly done by a pit bull, and we click on the article. We read the article, looking for pictures of the actual dog involved in the attack, or legitimate scientific research quoted. Instead we find a stock photo of a snarling dog, and the report cites DBO (dogsbitedotorg)

This cycle of picking one particular breed of dog to disparage, and attempt to exterminate has been been happening for decades. Those of us that are old enough remember the vilification of the Doberman, the German Shepherd, and the Rottweiler. All of those trends lasted for about ten years each. Why has the trend lasted for over a decade with pit bulls? We have more science proving these arcane theories about pit bulls to be patently false than all of those other breeds combined. Yet, it persists.

My understanding changed when I started learning internet marketing. There are certain facets to internet marketing that most people know very little about. However, these facets are, in my opinion, why the media continues to publish negative stories about pit bulls more than they do any other breed of dog. Back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s the internet either didn't exist, or was in its infancy. The same rules didn't apply to Dobermans, German Shepherds, and Rottweilers. News operated in an old school fashion. Papers or television, those were your choices. There was no comment section. There was no clicking a "like" button. You read it in the paper, or you saw it on television, and perhaps talked about it the next day at work or school.

News is big business now. News companies are giant corporations that operate in print and online, and giant corporations need money to operate. They get the money they need from advertisers; and they get advertisers to spend massive amounts of money by proving how many people visit their site during a specific period of time (be it daily, weekly, or monthly). They prove this to their advertisers by using two key piece of information: click rate, and comments.

This is why pit bulls are vilified in the media. Money. That's it. Stories about pit bulls attacking make news corporations money. They make money because people click on the articles, and comment. The news corporations don't care if they're helping contribute to misinformation. They want numbers/money; and as long as people continue to click and comment on these stories, they will continue to be published. The cycle will never end.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-whit...35130.html


Last, in direct response to your ad-hominem

http://www.orangeleader.com/2015/10/28/b...l-attacks/

“Breed-specific” legislation (BSL) is the blanket term for laws that either regulate or ban certain breeds completely in the hopes of reducing dog attacks. Some city/municipal governments have enacted breed-specific laws. However, the problem of dangerous dogs will not be remedied by the “quick fix” of breed-specific laws—or, as they should truly be called, breed-discriminatory laws.

It is worth noting that in some areas, regulated breeds include not just American Pit Bull terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers and Rottweilers, but also a variety of other dogs, including American Bulldogs, Mastiffs, Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, or any mix of these breeds—and dogs who simply resemble these breeds.

Just to note (besides the point): Pit Bulls arent the only dog breed banned......Being the expert you seem to think you are, I would suspect you know this yet conveniently left this all important fact out. hmmmm

Following a thorough study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided not to support BSL. The CDC cited, among other problems, the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds, especially true of mixed-breed dogs. The CDC also noted the likelihood that as certain breeds are regulated, those who exploit dogs by making them aggressive will replace them with other, unregulated breeds.

In the aforementioned study, the CDC noted that many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression—things such as heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status, socialization and training. These last two concerns are well-founded, given that:

More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs.
An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog.
A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog who is not chained or tethered.
97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks in 2006 were not spayed/neutered:
78 percent were maintained not as pets, but rather for guarding, image enhancement, fighting or breeding.
84 percent were maintained by reckless owners—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised.

so where does this take us? Ironically, just about back to one of your more rational thoughts on the matter.

Recognizing that the problem of dangerous dogs requires serious attention, the ASPCA seeks effective enforcement of breed-neutral laws that hold dog owners accountable for the actions of their animals.

Hold the dog dog owners responsible? hmmmm...... seems like i just heard someone talking about that?????

Chew on that some.....

Unless you were just talking about holding only pit bull owners responsible for what their dogs do, which i would find extremely bizarre (but you never know).