Natural History

Posted in Absolute Piffle, dog breeds | Tagged Catahoula cur, Catahoula leopard dog, Louisiana catahoula | 28 Comments

28 Responses

1. on March 27, 2010 at 6:22 pm ruthcrisler

   Is this a joke? Looks like a stuffed toy.

   
   
2. on March 27, 2010 at 6:55 pm Janice in GA

   ::whoosh::

   
   
   • on March 27, 2010 at 9:32 pm ruthcrisler

     Okay, I deserved that.

     
     
3. on March 27, 2010 at 8:39 pm Pibble

   Poor thing never had a chance. :)

   
   
4. on March 28, 2010 at 12:54 am EmilyS

   I am so using that!

   
   
5. on March 28, 2010 at 10:26 am Sharon

   Absolutely Gruesome!!!!

   
   
6. on March 28, 2010 at 11:02 am Jackal73

   Savage! :D

   
   
7. on March 28, 2010 at 7:23 pm Miki

   My standard poodles did the same thing to a two headed snake. Sorry – no video. ;-)

   
   
8. on March 29, 2010 at 12:14 am Life With Dogs

   I was prepared to be impressed. Let’s just say I’m disappointed in myself. :)

   
   
   • on March 29, 2010 at 7:59 am retrieverman

     I had the same feeling when I first saw it.

     
     
9. on March 29, 2010 at 12:51 pm bill

   R-

   I am totally hijacking, but i dont know how to email the blog. Anyway i finally got a chance to read the data the Burns linked about dog bite statisitcs. 1983-2010.

   http://www.scribd.com/doc/24436191/Dog-attack-deaths-and-maimings-U-S-Canada-September-1982-to-December-22-2009

   How can you even discuss the temperment changes in goldens when the DATA shows that injuring bites from pit bulls vs. goldens during the period was 1451 to 9?

   What am is missing here?? WHy is tere even a debate about the relative odds of danger from owning a game-bred dog vs. a non-fighting breed?

   Did i misread the report? Is it it breed bigoted BS? What is going on?

   
   
   • on March 29, 2010 at 1:11 pm retrieverman

     All of that is true.

     Problem.

     Let’s think of this from the gun control argument.

     I’m not in favor of gun control, not because gun violence isn’t real, but because as soon as you ban guns, then knives come out– then they try to ban them.

     It becomes an insane way of living in a society, because the state is always trying to protect us from potential harm. (Gosh, I sound libertarian there, don’t I? I’m not).

     Well, if we ban or throw a heap of restrictions on pit bull terriers, there are actually more aggressive dogs that this demographic can get.

     Here’s a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMwRGVLuq1Y

     The breed is the Caucasian ovtcharka. It’s an excellent livestock guardian dog.

     I’m glad that most of these dogs in this country are on farms and not urban areas. Their breeders, by and large, don’t want them to become the next criminal dog.

     I certainly don’t recommend them for casual pet owners.

     But if you ban or strictly regulate pit bulls, I can see this breed replacing them, and these dogs are much larger, much more powerful, and most of them have these instinct.

     Then we’ll ban them.

     Then they’ll get something else.

     Then our statutes become so full of banned breeds that they become difficult to read. Then we have fights over what breed a dog is.

     And then they start breeding new breeds for this purpose.

     And we’ve not solved the problem at all.

     Yes, those statistics do say something, but the prescription you are suggesting wind up creating a bigger mess than your solving. Indeed, you probably aren’t solving it at all.

     
     
10. on March 29, 2010 at 1:36 pm bill

    I guess I am not in favor of BSLs either, but i wish that walking fighting dogs around my neighborhood, or to a dog park, or into PetSmart was about as socially acceptable as wearing a t-shirt with a racist slogan on the front.

    People that keep these dogs as pets in the city/suburbs should be ridiculed and reminded at every turn that their decison, while admittedly not actually LIKELY to cause harm to a person or another pet dog, is MUCH MUCH MUCH more dangerous and irresponsible than choosing another type of dog.

    When a 20-something young professional goes to adopt one of these dogs, they should have to sign a form acknowledging that their new pet is 160 times mote likely to injure a person than a golden retriever.

    
    
    • on March 29, 2010 at 11:54 pm Independent George

      There are two major problems with the breed bite statistics:

      1. Breed identification is an inexact science at best, and a complete fabrication at worst. I remember reading a story in Denver recently where animal control officers were actually tested on their ability to identify Pit Bulls, and scored in the range of random guessing.

      2. Breed selection is nonrandom. Due to the stigma, Pit Bulls tend to be owned by two types of people: responsible dog owners determined to make their dogs ambassadors of their breed, and nitwits who want rough, tough dogs to show how rough & tough they are. If you want to talk about a small percentage of dogs being responsible for a substantial portion of bites, it applies within a breed even moreso than between breeds.

      I currently live in one of those dense urban neighborhoods filled with “20-something young professionals” who adopt pit bulls. I used to live in a… different neighborhood in the same city. It’s the same dogs living in both places (often literally), but their behaviors couldn’t be more different. The idea that it’s the dog itself that’s the problem is laughable to me.

      
      
11. on March 29, 2010 at 2:11 pm bill

    Wait, my math is terrible. there were a lot more goldens than pit-types during the period, right? could it be even worse? How would you calculate the likelihood to injure differential between pits and goldens?

    Is there enough data fill the blanks: On average, a randomly selected Pitbull type dog is ___ times more likely to injure another person than a randomly selcted golden retriever?

    If pit bites stay flat, how much would golden retriver bites have to increase in the next 10 years to catch up?

    
    
    • on March 29, 2010 at 3:56 pm retrieverman

      I have no idea what the breed numbers are.

      Seriously. There is no breed census.

      
      
      • on March 29, 2010 at 4:24 pm bill

        Is Burns’ source (Animal People or something) total BS?

        
        
        • on March 29, 2010 at 4:28 pm retrieverman

          I’m not so sure about this source.

          
          
12. on March 29, 2010 at 5:48 pm bill

    Burns doesnt seem like the type that would source a complete fabrication. I wonder what the agenda is?

    
    
    • on March 29, 2010 at 5:59 pm retrieverman

      He’s using wikipedia as a source.

      I don’t think it’s intentional.

      
      
13. on March 29, 2010 at 6:08 pm bill

    that’s a pretty significant error, for someone who takes this stuff as serious as terrierman. I was ready to call you the Neville Chamberlain of pit-fighting dogs.

    
    
    • on March 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm retrieverman

      I think he was using wikipedia, which often uses crappy sources, like this blog.

      
      
    • on March 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm retrieverman

      I think the actual numbers are closer to 30 percent, but I haven’t looked at them in a while.

      It’s still unusually high, which means that pit bulls do require responsible ownership (as do all dogs.)

      
      
14. on March 29, 2010 at 6:32 pm bill

    Still, if 2-3% of dogs cause 30% of all serious dog bites. It’s widow dressing to worry about growing agression in other breeds, like retrievers, IMO.

    I read the history of Chinaman’s career the other day. It was difficult to comprehend how people could celebrate, let alone allow a dog like that sire literally hundreds of puppies.

    
    
    • on March 29, 2010 at 6:36 pm retrieverman

      I’m worried about retriever aggression for selfish reasons.

      
      
    • on March 29, 2010 at 6:38 pm retrieverman

      Golden retrievers bite more people than pit bulls do, but pit bulls kill more people.

      I know this is splitting hairs.

      The source on the dog bites is dodgy. I thought that what you were talking about.

      The one on euthanasia is even worse. That’s the one that comes from wikipedia.

      
      
    • on March 29, 2010 at 6:48 pm retrieverman

      As for Chinaman, Tudor’s Dibo, and the rest– the people who celebrated that stuff had a screw loose.

      And you should read their stuff– google “Don Mayfield” and “Tudor’s Dibo.”

      One of the myths is this is an African American thing. This is actually a white trash thing.

      
      
15. on March 29, 2010 at 8:23 pm Bill

    It’s funny, I always knew it purely as a white thing, until that HBO series The Wire, and the Bad Newz deal.

    I wonder if the “sport” is integrated now.

    
    

Comments are closed.