Liquid shampoo was invented in 1927. Shampoo was invented in 1898 as a water-soluble powder. And anyway if there was a shampoo ad between 1927 and 1930, then that is within range.
But your comment about shampoo was just plain silly, unlike your other assertions about pit bulls, which are uninformed, unhelpful and downright harmful.
On page 178, Dickey describes a fatal pit bull attack that Delise refuses to label as a fatal pit bull attack. In 2010, Ethel Horton was killed when the pit bull she was dog sitting attacked her. In the middle of the attack, Horton had a heart attack. Dickey describes the “bites” as “in no way fatal.” But the pit bull kept attacking after Horton died from the heart attack, doing great damage to Horton's body. And Delise believes that since Horton had a heart attack in the middle of her dog attack, the dog attack was in no way responsible for her death. Among the many strange assumptions Delise is making is that the attack did not precipitate the heart attack AND that the pit bull would have stopped attacking had Horton not had a heart attack.
On page 172, Dickey explains that Delise uses the CDC custom of only counting dog bite related fatalities (DBRF) “in which the medical examiner had listed the mechanical trauma of a dog bite injury - lacerations (cuts), avulsions (removal of skin), crushed bones, or exsanguination - as the primary cause of death.”
OK, so Delise doesn’t count attacks, no matter the severity, if the victim happens to have a heart attack in the middle of it.
On the very next page, 173, Dickey explains that Delise found many many fatal dog attacks that the CDC researcher missed and that 44 different breeds were involved in fatal dog attacks including a West Highland white terrier. Considering what she just said one page earlier, that Delise only counts DBRFs that result in the mechanical damage a dog can do, that little Westie must have really torn that victim up, right?
It turns out that the only known recorded fatal Westie attack was a bite on a calf that led an elderly woman, 75 year old Rose Kazarian, to have a series of three heart attacks which led to her death the next day. So, now Delise DOES count heart attacks precipiated by a dog bite in the list of fatal dog attacks.
Karen Delise has different rules for including attacks by pit bulls and attacks by little dogs in her list of fatal dog attacks, and Dickey doesn’t say one word about it. Seems a bit biased, doesn’t it.
Bronwen Dickey says of DBO: "Dogsbite.org contradicts everything put forth by the groups most qualified to speak about animal science, animals behavior and dog bite epidemiology.... (p. 186) 100% wrong, Ms Dickey!
" Most of the information on dogsbite.org comes from one self-published paper..." That is an absolute and egregious lie, (p. 187) Ms Dickey!
DOGSBITE.ORG CONSISTS OF OVER 2200 WEB PAGES
MS. DICKEY, HOW MANY OF THESE 2,200 PAGES DID YOU READ?
"The site is also littered with childish ad hominems...." (p. 187) ANOTHER LIE, MS. DICKEY
You can literally read 100 DBO site pages a day for 2 weeks straight and not come across any of the ad hominems you mentioned.
One of the most interesting parts of Dickey's book is the information (in Chapter 3) about breeds and genetics and the difficulty of identifying what breeds are present in a dog. Genetically, I was surprised to learn, 'pit bull' pretty much isn't a definable breed at all.
For example, the Mars Veterinary company, which administers a popular DNA test for finding out what breeds are in your dog, does not have a DNA profile for the American Pit Bull Terrier, saying that the genetic diversity of dogs labeled 'pit bulls' is too great to support creation of a meaningful profile.
Basically, a 'pit bull' is a dog someone thinks looks like a pit bull. And Dickey goes on to cite data showing that even dog experts do extremely poorly at correctly identifying breeds present in a dog visually.
This article reports on a study showing similar findings with regard particularly to pit bulls:
What does it mean? A few things:
1. Media reports of attacks by 'pit bulls' are very unreliable with regard to identification of the dog breed involved. Therefore:
2. Anti-pit web sites that aggregate media reports in order to paint a picture of 'pit bulls' as uniquely dangerous are not using reliable evidence.
3. Breed-specific legislation is not based on reliable data or evidence about dog attacks.
Of course, none of this will change the minds of zealots, who aren't even going to look at anything that contradicts their prior conceptions.
Carolyn Lathrop - You are such a bigoted Moron that you aren't even worth responding to though I find I must. What a piece of chicken crap you are. It'd actually be laughable if it weren't so biased and untrue. Geez, what a pitiful piece of work you come off as.
I see that as usual a few of the 'regulars' from the anti-pit bull camp are posting here and in their usual obnoxious, accusatory and hateful manner. One of the things that I have Ms. Dickey to thank for, besides her very thoroughly researched well executed book, is how she helped me see that engaging these people, the anti-pit bull campaigners , in any effort to impart factual inforation to them is an exercise in futility.
These people have no interest in anything that doesn't support their beliefs and there's nothing any of us can do about it. However the energy that we might waste on engaging them in a war of words no one wins can much better be spent in more productive ways.
First all we who have dogs that might even remotely be taken for being a pit bull type dog must at all costs and put every effort into helping our dogs be ambassadors for all pit bull type dogs everywhere AND then get out into the public so as many people as possible can see what wonderful, safe and well behaved dogs we have BECAUSE we choose to be responsible dog owners. Secondly we most promote responsible dog ownership to all dog owners that have all kinds of dogs; and if nothing else lead by example. Third we need to lobby our local city councils and animal control agencies to create and enforce comprehensive non-breed specific dangerous dog ordinances that hold dog owners responsible for their dogs behavior. Fourth we should encourage and support our local animal welfare related agencies to educate the public on the importance of responsible dog ownership to include easily affordable or free programs to spay/neuter and training/behavioral assistance in order foster a safer community in relation to dog related injuries. Fifth but not last by any means begin or support public service programs in schools helping children learn how to interact with dogs in a way that is safe for humans and humane for dogs.
In the end it must be up to those of us who are more interested in fixing the problem of dog aggression and the result of it than we are in blaming a certain kind of dog for the behavior it is allowed by humans to engage in to remedy this issue. It is NOT an impossible task and daylight is burning while we waste our energy on people who are purposefully ignorant of the real reason why dogs harm other living things.
I have never met a pit bull who didn't think he or she was a lap dog. All that licking immediately puts me in a better mood.
I was attacked by a pit-bull rottweiler mix, and got it to HALT
just before it got to
me on a run;
DOGS OF WAR?
The command "HRAUS" is the German command to release the Dogs of War,
from which comes the term "HARASS"
so when a cop sicced a dog on me with the command "HRAUS"
when I walked home past his house,
that was true harassment, in its most primitive form.
Fortunately, I've known attack dog trainers, and when I said "HALT"
with the German pronunciation, the dog halted and sat down.
The dog was better trained than its owner,
whose wife (also a cop) referred to
a couple of elderly women sitting on their porceh as "Porch Monkeys".
I have two pitbull-type dogs, but I partially agree with Carolyn's points. One of the dogs is an absolute angel. However, the one other one pledged allegiance to ISIS and crossed the border into Syria.
I will be looking for this book, can't wait to read!!....When I got my girl, I also got a book along with her (Animal Planet)...this book was spot on with many things about these dogs, I loved it!
And I will add....I have a wonderful, happy, gentle Staffy....she was almost put down because of the hate spews of the ignorant, but I ignored(my husband had said no because of all the negative he heard about them) and went full force ahead and my girl is 7 yrs old and counting, with never a mishap as what some say they WILL do.
Thank-You for writing this book
Oh Carolyn, every time you comment you look more foolish and maniacal. Post after post of nonsense. (Like zhampoo wasn't invented until last century. "Better to keep your mouth closed and let people assume you're a fool than open it and remove all doubt"
For the fella that suggested she write her own book_ she doesn't have time with all the internet stalking and tin foil hat fittings. Every time an article comes out about Ms. Dickey, the flying monkeys swoop in and prove how crazy they are.
CB,MaR,JB,LH, and many others are just criminals that are placing their anger onto innocent dogs rather than receive the actual help they TRULY need....
Mrs. Dickey is an outstanding member of society. They could learn a thing or two from her...
If people do some heavy digging they will find that before the 80s pitbulls in England where know as Nanny dogs,because they are great will kids and protective as well. In the 80'a man in the US had a bitbull and taught it to be aggressive and he had his dog attack his girlfriend and the dog killed her. Also the reason why they use pitbulls for fighting is because they are goal oriented that when they are raised to fight that is there one go la in mind.
If you don't believe me look it up.
Mary Ann, pretty strong assertions. Any proof? Any science about what pit bulls were _intended_ to do? Ms. Dickey cited hundreds of sources. You obviously have a thing about hating pit bulls -- as your one-note Twitter account proves. But your invective lacks anything substantive. If you want to convince people, make a solid argument.
It's also important to note the source of these anti-dog, anti-safety, stalking extremists. Craig Brown, who was the one removed from Ms. Bronwen's reading in North Carolina, is affiliated with Daxton's Friends (which also includes/esteems a firefighter who was demoted for driving around with duct tape and other implements to torture dogs). Daxton's Friends is affiliated with Dogsbite, which exaggerates and fabricates statistics often quoted by the media without any verification.
Note that the organization involved here is the leading pro-BSL, anti-pit bull voice by default, since no expert or knowledgeable organization holds the extreme and ignorant opinions that they do.
Just another pit bull airhead endangering others with her tripe..yawn...nothing here but the usual pitignorance. Pits were never intended to be kept as pets by the dogmen who originally bred them as the "bull and terrier". They intended them to KILL each other in dog fighting pits for their bloodsport amusement. Grotesque breed and, far as I can see, grotesque owners...putting the lives of their grotesque beasts before anyone and anything. BAN 'em and be done with this godforsaken breed.
Good article! As an owner of three "Pit Bull-Type dogs" this statement really resonated: "You talk about "breedism"—does that mean believing that pure breeds are better? And also just that some breeds are not normal. They are not deserving of homes; they need to be exterminated, and then things will somehow get better. It's simply not true." The range of reactions strangers have when I walk my dogs covers this full gamut. A good example of one end of the spectrum is the mad-typist who has posted 5 of the 12 comments on this thread. At the other end of the spectrum someone I met while walking my dogs told me that "Pit Bulls" were magical. I can often be heard telling people that neither assumption is true. They're just dogs and dogs are individuals.
Carolyn , how many pit bulls have you helped in the shelter ?
Ms. Lathrop, your much ballyhooed comment reading seemed to miss the part where you claimed shampoo wasn't invented until 1927 and then were refuted by a fellow commenter. So perhaps you'll catch this one. LIQUID shampoo was invented in 1927, shampoo itself has been around for hundreds of years.
Here is a link for you from Time Magazine on the history: http://time.com/3998228/history-of-shampoo…
Here is another link that shows examples of shampoo ads from pre 1930: http://tinyurl.com/guslzcm
See, not so fun when people comment at you with a snarky tone, is it? Weird how people don't like that and are somehow unconvinced by it.
But by all means, please lecture us all on disliking facts.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation