# Tenn. firefighter-medic fends off pit bulls with spine board



## Bloom-IUEMT (Jul 28, 2010)

http://www.ems1.com/ems-products/patient-handling/articles/852643-Tenn-firefighter-medic-fends-off-pit-bulls-with-spine-board/

I strongly believe it be required that people be licensed to own, care for, sell, or breed pit bulls.  They are incredibly dangerous and incredibly trendy among  rapper wannabes.


----------



## fortsmithman (Jul 28, 2010)

Here in Fort Smith the dogs would not be place in the animal shelter they would have been put down with a 12 gauge shotgun by the municipal enforcement constable or the dog control officer.  The head I believe would be chopped off and sent for rabies testing.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Jul 28, 2010)

fortsmithman said:


> Here in Fort Smith the dogs would not be place in the animal shelter they would have been *put down with a 12 gauge shotgun by the municipal enforcement constable or the dog control officer. The head I believe would be chopped off and sent for rabies* *testing.*


 
:blink:













..................they don't do anything halfway in Ft. Smith I guess..........


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 28, 2010)

Bloom-IUEMT said:


> I strongly believe it be required that people be licensed to own, care for, sell, or breed pit bulls.  They are incredibly dangerous and incredibly trendy among  rapper wannabes.



Any dog could be trained to be dangerous.


----------



## fortsmithman (Jul 28, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Any dog could be trained to be dangerous.



I agree.  It's not the breed but how the dog is raised.  I've seen pit bulls who are really docile.  I've also seen small dogs who were incredibly vicious, just depends on how the owner treats and trains the dogs.


----------



## medicRob (Jul 28, 2010)

Bloom-IUEMT said:


> http://www.ems1.com/ems-products/patient-handling/articles/852643-Tenn-firefighter-medic-fends-off-pit-bulls-with-spine-board/
> 
> I strongly believe it be required that people be licensed to own, care for, sell, or breed pit bulls.  They are incredibly dangerous and incredibly trendy among  rapper wannabes.



Tennessee recently passed a new law this month that states it is now a misdemeanor for a felon to own a dog deemed as viscious and furthermore, many counties here are enacting laws that do not allow Pitt Bulls in city limits. This is usually where I see problems in my career in EMS. We respond to a meth lab where an individual has specifically trained a dog to be viscious. If it was up to me, I'd carry a fire arm, shoot the dog, and not think twice, but it is not. I really have no tolerance for animals of any kind, but that is just me. 



> Criminal Offenses - As enacted, makes it a Class A misdemeanor offense
> for a person who has been convicted of a violent felony to own, possess,
> or have custody or control of a vicious dog or a potentially vicious dog.
> - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17 and Title 44, Chapter 8.



http://www.capitol.tn.gov/legislation/publications/effective 07_01_10.pdf


----------



## terrible one (Jul 28, 2010)

Bloom-IUEMT said:


> I strongly believe it be required that people be licensed to own, care for, sell, or breed pit bulls.  They are incredibly dangerous and incredibly trendy among  rapper wannabes.



Welcome to stereo-types and a biased media


----------



## cristianb36 (Jul 28, 2010)

I've had to fight them off in compton where they all seem to be dumped on the streets after they ceize to be cute at 2 yrs old


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 28, 2010)

See, spine boards do lower mortality and morbidity! 


			
				JPINV said:
			
		

> Any dog could be trained to be dangerous.


But dogs of some breeds are more likely to be dangerous.


----------



## medicRob (Jul 28, 2010)

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html


"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through 1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (*Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.*) 

*Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent.* A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (*Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.*) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.

Anyone got research proving otherwise?


----------



## firetender (Jul 29, 2010)

In my years as a medic, while encountering pit bulls, bulls, German Shepards, Rottweilers, Great Danes and you name it -- all the ones you worry about -- and under all sorts of potentially disastrous circumstances, NOT ONCE was I ever threatened in any way shape or form!

That does not include, however, Chi-hu-a-hu-as! You know they were Terriers interbred with rats for hairless Taco meat, don't you? Anyhow, no kidding, I'm talking attacked, like clamp them chompers into your ankles (Thank God for boots!) and literally having to smash them against the wall to loosen their grip. (According to all ASPCA guidelines, no harm befell the little basturds.)


----------



## fortsmithman (Jul 29, 2010)

firetender said:


> In my years as a medic, while encountering pit bulls, bulls, German Shepards, Rottweilers, Great Danes and you name it -- all the ones you worry about -- and under all sorts of potentially disastrous circumstances, NOT ONCE was I ever threatened in any way shape or form!
> 
> That does not include, however, Chi-hu-a-hu-as! You know they were Terriers interbred with rats for hairless Taco meat, don't you? Anyhow, no kidding, I'm talking attacked, like clamp them chompers into your ankles (Thank God for boots!) and literally having to smash them against the wall to loosen their grip. (According to all ASPCA guidelines, no harm befell the little basturds.)



I agree my family had a chiuhuaua (as yell as being mean lite sob's hard to spell breed) and it was the most vicious little dog around unfortunately it was run over.  My family owns a rottweiler/lab cross and he is the nicest wimpiest dog around (family wouldn't have him any other way).


----------



## LucidResq (Jul 29, 2010)

I won't argue that some research has shown pit bulls are responsible for more serious dog bites, but breed-specific bans are unethical and impractical. We should ban all guns before we start banning dogs because they kill and injure a lot more people... I know some people, of course, would be happy to see guns banned but I'm not one of them. The government can not eliminate everything that has the potential to harm us, and frankly I would appreciate if they stopped trying, especially when these things serve a good purpose and enrich our lives more often than they hurt people. 

Out here in Denver and surrounding areas, our pit bull ban has greatly exacerbated the problem of shelter overcrowding, which leads to the euthanization of healthy, friendly animals - pit bull and otherwise. Since enacting the ban, there has been no difference in the number or severity of dog attacks in Denver compared to cities without such legislation. 

Also, it's important to note that dog breeds are not as distinct as people might think. Since there is no definitive way to determine a dog's breed, the decision to confiscate and destroy people's beloved family pets is based on the subjective judgment of an animal control officer. Keep in mind "pit bull mixes" are also banned, so if someone decides your dog kinda looks like a pit bull, it can be taken from you and killed.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 29, 2010)

LucidResq said:


> We should ban all guns before we start banning dogs because they kill and injure a lot more people...



The big problem is the second amendment, which has been officially declared to be an individual right.


----------



## 8jimi8 (Jul 29, 2010)

LucidResq said:


> I won't argue that some research has shown pit bulls are responsible for more serious dog bites, but breed-specific bans are unethical and impractical. We should ban all guns before we start banning dogs because they kill and injure a lot more people... I know some people, of course, would be happy to see guns banned but I'm not one of them. The government can not eliminate everything that has the potential to harm us, and frankly I would appreciate if they stopped trying, especially when these things serve a good purpose and enrich our lives more often than they hurt people.
> 
> Out here in Denver and surrounding areas, our pit bull ban has greatly exacerbated the problem of shelter overcrowding, which leads to the euthanization of healthy, friendly animals - pit bull and otherwise. Since enacting the ban, there has been no difference in the number or severity of dog attacks in Denver compared to cities without such legislation.
> 
> Also, it's important to note that dog breeds are not as distinct as people might think. Since there is no definitive way to determine a dog's breed, the decision to confiscate and destroy people's beloved family pets is based on the subjective judgment of an animal control officer. Keep in mind "pit bull mixes" are also banned, so if someone decides your dog kinda looks like a pit bull, it can be taken from you and killed.



While i trust you as a source, you are employing a logical fallacy, until you post up some numbers and studies.

A pit bill is a friendly harmless family pet, until it isn't. Same with any dog.  Pit bulls have a bad rap, but then again, they are always the worst controlled by their owners and one of the more aggressive breeds that I have witnessed while taking my dogs out.

Of all of the incidents that have nearly ended in physical altercations (where some jack@$$'s dog is attacking one of my dogs) it has always been an overly aggressive pit bull (count 4 times in my experience).  Of course, i do go to the "free" dog park, so I guess it's my own fault for enjoying the water near the same place that all of the wannabee homeless people go.


----------



## CAOX3 (Jul 30, 2010)

A pit bull isnt even a breed of dog, its a class that encompasses all "bully" breeds.

Most trained personell can not correctly identify an American Staffodshire Terrior.(What most people refer to as a pit bull)

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html Give it a shot!

Anything can be dangerous in the hands of an irresponsible owner.

And no I dont condone breed specific legislation, its like saying we should outlaw shotguns becuse the chance of killing you is greater then if you were shot with a .22.  Its either all or nothing in my opinion.


----------



## CAOX3 (Jul 30, 2010)

Sorry what I meant was when they use the word "pit bull" they usuall include multiple "bully" breeds.  Not just the American Piit bull terrier.


----------



## Meursault (Jul 30, 2010)

LucidResq said:


> We should ban all guns before we start banning dogs because they kill and injure a lot more people...





CAOX3 said:


> And no I dont condone breed specific legislation, its like saying we should outlaw shotguns becuse the chance of killing you is greater then if you were shot with a .22.  Its either all or nothing in my opinion.



The problem with the gun analogy is that guns don't act autonomously. If someone puts his gun in a safe, it will sit there inert. (If someone puts his dog in a safe, it will also eventually sit there inert, but that's neither here nor there.) The "assault weapons" ban, though a terrible piece of legislation, is a better comparison. The idea isn't to ban something solely on the grounds that it's dangerous, but that it's disproportionately more dangerous and no more necessary than other things that serve the same purpose.

I'm not sure about the appropriateness of breed-specific laws, but I'd like to see stronger arguments against them than the claim that there's something inherently wrong with banning certain categories of a thing or that it follows that banning one dangerous thing requires government to ban all things potentially more dangerous.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2010)

MrConspiracy said:


> The idea isn't to ban something solely on the grounds that it's dangerous, but that it's disproportionately more dangerous and no more necessary than other things that serve the same purpose.



Unfortunately, the "Assault Weapons Ban" really banned guns that looked dangerous than actual assault weapons. What most people think of when the phrase "assault weapon" is thrown around is an object that was already banned in many states and highly regulated (the tax stamps aren't cheap) by the Federal Government. What the AWB did was ban things like bayonet lugs and pistol grips. A rifle can just as easily kill someone without either of those.


----------



## Meursault (Jul 31, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Unfortunately, the "Assault Weapons Ban" really banned guns that looked dangerous than actual assault weapons. What most people think of when the phrase "assault weapon" is thrown around is an object that was already banned in many states and highly regulated (the tax stamps aren't cheap) by the Federal Government. What the AWB did was ban things like bayonet lugs and pistol grips. A rifle can just as easily kill someone without either of those.



Yeah, I know. I was thinking more intent than effect, though perhaps it's an apt metaphor for breed bans either way.


----------



## citizensoldierny (Aug 4, 2010)

I really don't want to get into the politics of the whole issue, as I like most in EMS, Fire,Police, Military and the like see everything in black and white and expect most here do also and will hold firmly to their beliefs no matter what evidence is put forward.With that said me and my wife  and quite a few people I know own dogs who are what are considered vicious/ aggressive breeds sans issues. My dog has been attacked not once but twice by other dogs while walking on a leash, both aggressive dogs, a husky and a boxer , would most likely not make any areas banned list. Whilst my dog certainly would. BTW I am not a rapper nor do I run a meth lab but I am a fan of dogs and was raised with and been around most of the breeds that are considered aggressive sans issues. As noted by some of the more informed here they are docile and friendly until their good nature is trained out of them. Below is a pic of my daughter and  family dog.






[/IMG]


----------



## jjesusfreak01 (Aug 4, 2010)

Yup, that dog looks like a killer to me...


----------



## citizensoldierny (Aug 4, 2010)

Death by drowning, as she's likely to lick you to death. Also sorry all have tried to resize photo and it just won't take.


----------



## 8jimi8 (Aug 4, 2010)

pics like that remind me of the news story (probably about 10 years ago) when a family pit bull ripped the face off of a toddler and killed him.


No i do not wish for that to EVER happen to anyone, No i've never met a pit bull that did that, or anyone that it happened too, but i remember that news story and it makes me think, sure, "you're safe... until you accidently shut the dog's tail in the door..." or something horrificly simple that makes the dog snap.


Again, sure it could happen to any breed.  And its never a tragedy, until after something tragic happens.

I love dogs, have two laying on my leather couch right now.  My dogs are a mixed breed catahoula leapord cur (that's a boar hunting / cattle herding breed) mixed with labrador. 

    We used to rescue catahoulas.  The rescue agency sent us a partially blind, alpha female, that they had difficulty placing.  This dog had problems from the start.  Couldn't walk down a narrow hallway, for fear.  We assumed it was peripheral blindness that made her so jumpy in closed spaces.  She  lunged, snapped at, and almost bit me on day 1.  We cared for her for about 8-9 months, all the while dealing with her quirky, nervous nature.  Then one night, my wife tried to get her to move, so that she could lay down on the couch with me and the dog snapped at her.  She got so close to biting my wife that there were 4 puncture holes in the excess material on her long sleeve pajamas.  Dog was gone the next day.

Its not any particular breed, it could be any dog, for any number of circumstances.  Does that put me at risk for one of my dogs eating my face and killing me, yup.  Do i think it will happen, no.  Am I afraid that some dogs might freak out, depends really on the owner.... most of the time.


----------



## citizensoldierny (Aug 4, 2010)

8jimi8,
Believe me my wife and I had second thoughts about getting any dog not just a pit because of the stories you hear on the news. A german shepherd or Lab that snaps could do just as much damage to a small child or even a larger one  as I also have a 12 year daughter, as a pit. When I was a kid we had Rotties, Dobermans, and shepherds. Guess what types of dogs I've been attacked by Schitzu's and a mutt, obviously not my dogs. I'm not of the persuasion to ignore on aggression on a dogs part as I do have children. If any dog we were going to take into our house was showing agression it would quickly go back to where it came from. As for my dog, she even likes cats, doesn't know what to make of them but when she gets around them she is more interested than aggressive.


----------

