Submitted by weebchildren t3_ycqj2e in Connecticut
Anyone know of somewhere to rent that’ll accept pitbulls? Preferably New Haven County area, but I’ll take any/all suggestions!
Comments
pittiedaddy t1_ito19jc wrote
>Insurance data indicates the Pitbulls and Rottweilers account for only 25% of dog bite claims. Which is also in agreement with the Ohio State University's Study that shows that Pitbulls account for approximately 22.5% of the most damaging reported bites. Pitbulls account for ~20% of the dog population by best estimates. Showing that pitbull bites are proportional to their population. In fact, their Breed Risk Rate is in line with other dogs breeds out there that are considered great family dogs. So how do pitbulls account for more than half of all dog bites? Agenda pushing misinformation by groups dedicated to hating a breed.
>Additionally, data from the American Veterinary Medical Association has concluded that no controlled studies have shown Pitbull-type dogs to be disproportionally aggressive.
>Lastly, Studies have shown that Errors in Identifying Pitbulls Link 2 happen approximately 60% of the time with shelter staff that spend a lot of time around dogs, so reports in the media about dog breeds are highly inaccurate and hardly count as a reputable source for a dogs breed.
>Oh you only see videos of pitbulls attacking? Not surprised. There is a group on this site that dedicates itself to reposting old archived videos to keep brainwashing people into fearing an event that happens 25 to 40 times a year with a breed that has a population around 20 million. Save us your anecdotal evidence of outliers.
[deleted] t1_ito1tj9 wrote
I don’t watch videos of animal attacks, and you’re missing the key statistic. Yes, lots of dogs bite, but pits alone are responsible for over 2/3 of fatal dog attacks, despite being a fraction of the dog population.
Sorry friend, nothing you are going to say is going to change the fact that my kid is less likely to be mauled to death by 50 labs compared to 1 pit. What’s the fascination with holding on to one failed breed? I like pits too, but why take the risk?
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itpvo2y wrote
>I don’t watch videos of animal attacks, and you’re missing the key statistic. Yes, lots of dogs bite, but pits alone are responsible for over 2/3 of fatal dog attacks, despite being a fraction of the dog population.
Yes you're missing the actual key point, which is that in OVER HALF OF THOSE FATAL ALL DOG ATTACKS THE BREED INFORMATION IS NOT RECORDED.
>Sorry friend, nothing you are going to say is going to change
Yes we can see that you're dumb, unwilling to accept information that that wholly contradicts your anti-science bullshit.
[deleted] t1_itpwrbq wrote
Anti-science lol. And no, the breed is recorded. In 2019 there were about 50 fatal dog attacks in the US. 33 were from pure pits, and another 6 were from mixed breeds, which are almost always partial pits.
No clue what you’re talking about. Dogsbite.org sources their information very thoroughly. Can you show me a different source that says more than half the fatal attacks in the US are unknown breeds? Browsing through different data sources that seem reliable and they all show the same thing. Where are you getting that fact from?
In contrast, labs and lab mixes result in under 1 death per year average, despite being the #1 dog breed in America by a huge margin.
Pan1cs180 t1_itq29n2 wrote
Those statistics are BS. They come from a group called dogsbite.org which is a lobbying group with the stated agenda of eradicating pit bulls specifically. It's a bit like citing a study written by the KKK when discussing what races of people are more violent. They're not a exactly a neutral, objective or even remotely scientific source for anything. Their reports have substantial and intentional problems with their methodology and are little more than misinformation.
[deleted] t1_itq2pcw wrote
Ok, so please provide other statistics. Both my research and anecdotal experience clearly show me that pitts are more dangerous than all other breeds combined. Can you provide information saying otherwise?
Also, the comparing the KKK to dog breeds is silly. We created pitts through selective breeding. They are not a natural animal. That has nothing to do with people hating black Americans for their skin color. We DID select the most violent pitts to breed, the ones that were best at fighting, strongest jaws etc. Of course they are more violent - we literally made them this way.
Pan1cs180 t1_itq3bor wrote
The lack of reputable research into this topic does not make dogsbite.org's methodology any less flawed or their reports any more accurate. They're full of poor methodology, unfounded assumptions and unaccounted for variables making them scientifically useless.
[deleted] t1_itq5olq wrote
Ok, so every data source agrees that pitts are responsible for the majority of dog deaths in the US. This is backed up by my close friend who has treated thousands of animal attacks at a SF pediatric hospital. Want to guess which breed of dog she will never buy after treating 16 years of bleeding or dead kids?
So data shows they are dangerous. Anecdotally they are dangerous. And yet because the research isn’t reliable enough you think we should just ignore it? Pass. It’s a breed we created, we can let it die off.
Pan1cs180 t1_itq6wmr wrote
> And yet because the research isn’t reliable enough you think we should just ignore it?
These specific reports from dogsbite.org are full of poor extremely methodology, unfounded assumptions and intentionally unaccounted for variables, and for those reasons it should absolutely be ignored, yes.
The goal of the authors was not to determine what breed of dog is responsible for the most fatalities, it was to prove that pitbulls are the breed of dog responsible for the most fatalities. They aren't starting from a null hypothesis in order to find out something they don't know. They're starting with the 'truth' and trying to find reasons that support that truth. If it doesn't support it, its not valid and the experiment fails. This makes their reports scientifically useless.
[deleted] t1_itq7bhv wrote
Lol ok
Pan1cs180 t1_itq7i79 wrote
I understand you have no response and I accept your concession.
[deleted] t1_itq95u4 wrote
Na, just don’t really care that much. You’re massively invested in pitts for some reason, and I just want a safer society. I’ll let you do you.
Thankfully pitts are on the decline in the US and abroad. Hopefully in a couple generations we let our mistake breed die off.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itt32p0 wrote
This is what every think tank does. They work backwards from the result they want.
RunnyDischarge t1_itpvi6p wrote
​
https://www.coloradoinjurylaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/
Top Three Breeds Responsible for Fatal Dog Attacks
Pitbull – 185 deaths
Pitbull Mix – 41 deaths
Rotweiller – 26 deaths
https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/
Top 10 Most Fatal Dog Breeds Table
Breed Deaths % of Total
Pit bull 284 65.6%
Rottweiler 45 10.4%
German shepherd 20 4.6%
Mixed-breed 17 3.9%
American bulldog 15 3.5%
Mastiff/Bullmastiff 14 3.2%
Husky 13 3.0%
Unknown/unreleased 11 2.5%
Labrador retriever 9 2.1%
Boxer 7 1.6%
https://www.warriorsforjustice.com/dog-biting-statistics-by-breed/
RunnyDischarge t1_itqx142 wrote
love the downvotes for facts. Pit bull owners are the Flat Earthers of the dog world.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itt20i7 wrote
Actually it's y'all. Misunderstanding statistics and research, misquoting data, who sound like flat earthers.
It's like you've never heard of "selection bias" or never took a class that included research fundamentals.
In half of all attacks the breed is unknown.
Of course the worst attacks will be over-reported.
People who play the lottery are bad with money.
It's a selection bias. The conclusion you're drawing (that pitbulls are dangerous) is not what research on the number of dog bites measures.
Doesn't that register with you? That you're not drawing a right conclusion from your data?
Do you not see the flaw in your reasoning?
RunnyDischarge t1_ituf0yw wrote
Flat Earthers, y’all
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itt3bvl wrote
The downvotes are because you're quoting a tally and saying it is evidence of propensity.
You can't use a thermometer as a clock.
RunnyDischarge t1_itueyqb wrote
Lol, like I said, Flat Earthers
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itvk6f2 wrote
How do you figure? Counting the number of events doesn't tell you anything about the cause of the events.
This is basic research skills.
Not complicated but for some reason you can't grasp it.
mattyzucks t1_itnyax4 wrote
You are psychotic
[deleted] t1_itnz1j8 wrote
😂😂😂
What? For not wanting the one specific breed around that’s responsible for 2/3 dog killings per year, 30% of which are small children? I have two small kids and there are many breeds of dogs. Pick literally any other one.
I’m not suggesting we euthanize all pits. I’m saying we make it illegal to breed, sell, or purchase them, and require they be neutered as soon as medically safe as puppies. 80% of fatal pit attacks are from un-neutered animals anyways, so it’s an easy win.
mattyzucks t1_itnzpj7 wrote
It's psychotic anti-pit propaganda like this which makes people think they're inherently vicious or scary. They're not.
[deleted] t1_ito0ab7 wrote
Anti-pit propaganda? I’m literally quoting statistics from the CDC website 😂 You might want to look in the mirror before throwing around words like psychotic and propaganda when someone literally just quotes data.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itq07yd wrote
Wrongly quoting them. You're not including over half of all dogs. And your quoting a tally as evidence of propensity, which it is not.
[deleted] t1_itq17pq wrote
False. 50ish dog killings per year, 30-40 from pitts. What makes you say that? What other dogs do I need to include? The bottom 20 breeds are responsible for under 5 attacks per year combined.
The dogs were bred for holding large animals by the throat and then rebred for fighting. Lots of mixing has gone on since then, so some pitts have more or less of the parent DNA from actual fighting dogs, but why take the risk? Plenty of other dog breeds to choose from that don’t kill 10-20 kids per year. If a lab bites my kid and I yell at it, it’ll let go. If a pitt goes after my kid, I’m gonna need 2 minutes of gore and trauma and my sharpest kitchen knife.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itq4n5v wrote
There's the anti science pure blood bullshit.
That's not how genetics work. ✅
Pitbulls were selectively bred for hunting. ✅
Pitbulls were later bred for loyalty more than for fighting, with only a handful of dogs being trained to fight. ✅
[deleted] t1_itq57sh wrote
Lol!
shoeshouuu t1_ito0kmb wrote
Yeah. Pits gotta go. You are deranged if you think they aren't dangerous. literally 90% of the dog community agrees
[deleted] t1_ito2v3r wrote
Makes sense the dog community agrees. Pits also are responsible for the most fatal attacks on other dogs by far. My colleague had to go to his car, get a screwdriver, and repeatedly stab a pit in the throat and eyes to get it to stop shaking his smaller dog to death.
There’s no other breed that’s going to ignore their owner and a screwdriver being stabbed into their eye to keep trying to kill some random dog at a dog park.
shoeshouuu t1_itp80fy wrote
Yeah fuck pit bulls and fuck pitbull owners.
mattyzucks t1_ito0nae wrote
Yeah I 100% don't give a shit
[deleted] t1_ito0v64 wrote
Judging by your personality and how easily you get triggered to rage, I’m thinking you are the exact type of owner that shouldn’t own an aggressive breed. Maybe pits and crazies naturally attract one another?
mattyzucks t1_ito0zzk wrote
I'd love for you to meet my dog
[deleted] t1_ito28n0 wrote
Thanks for proving my point.
mattyzucks t1_ito2d9j wrote
How? He's the sweetest little guy in the world. What point do you think I proved? That doesn't even make any sense. And you teach critical thinking? Oye
[deleted] t1_ito2z7o wrote
Lol
shoeshouuu t1_ito0qr8 wrote
Sure bud. Don't breed anymore baby killer plz
mattyzucks t1_ito0tj1 wrote
Lol baby killer what the fuck? They're not American soldiers dude they're dogs
shoeshouuu t1_ito0xit wrote
That have the reputation of killing small children. Stop playing dumb
TCPottery t1_ito1gt6 wrote
So do the GOP, but we don't ban them, LOL
shoeshouuu t1_ito1pyg wrote
Mam, we are talking about dogs here
SteveAlbinisBurner t1_itobs3j wrote
should be good anywhere, he’s mr. worldwide
Lizardpartay t1_itnpvmq wrote
Here for the comments
Teis123 t1_ito4330 wrote
Sounds like an HGTV show where Pitbull shows apartments to potential renters.
woodstove7 t1_itnul8l wrote
“It’s a lab mix”
[deleted] t1_itnr2h7 wrote
Most residential apartment communities ban them and other generally more violent/aggressive breeds. Best bet is to either call and ask about the pet policy or read the application. Wouldn’t be surprised if other residents complained about you having one though.
TCPottery t1_itnupke wrote
Pit bulls are no more vicious than a Shih Tzu. They are stronger, yes, but not more vicious. It is the viciousness of the owner/trainer which causes all the pain and anguish. The humans are the dangerous ones.
[deleted] t1_itnw82s wrote
Sure, definitely more nurture than nature. That said, I still wouldnt want my kids or my cat around one. Better safe than sorry. Of course ‘not all pit bulls’ but im just not willing to take a chance on someone training their dog properly.
[deleted] t1_itnxrim wrote
Yep. Most pit attacks are from bad owners, but some are from perfectly fine owners. Sadly we did this to them with decades of breeding. Time to let the breed die off and chalk it up to a mistake.
[deleted] t1_itnx2xq wrote
False and absurdly easy to prove. How many kids have been killed by SZ? How many hospitalized?
pittiedaddy t1_ito1igx wrote
What proof? Post the same reposted videos from the hate sub, or "evidence" from dogbites.org?
[deleted] t1_ito25ir wrote
Literally search “fatal dog attacks by year in US”. Click any link. They all say the same thing. The majority of fatal attacks are by pits. The only other breed that holds a candle is Rotts, which I also think should be banned. It goes from 67% of fatal attacks (pits) to like 3% from the next highest breed.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itpum5u wrote
Actually they all say that in the majority of cases the breed is unknown.
[deleted] t1_itpy1rc wrote
False. The data quite clearly shows Pitts are responsible for 60-70% of fatal attacks, even before you count in mixed breeds, which are almost all pitts as well. What source did you draw this conclusion from?
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itq45me wrote
I fixed it.
TCPottery t1_itnx98k wrote
Again, try to comprehend what you read. Those cases started with people who trained the dog to attack, to defend. Reading is fundamental. So is critical thinking.
[deleted] t1_itnxw1o wrote
Lol I teach reading and critical thinking for a living. Some attacks from pits are from bad owners, some aren’t. The breed is fundamentally broken on a genetic level.
[deleted] t1_itnzwkg wrote
[deleted]
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itpusn6 wrote
Here comes the false argument about genetics and the pitch for eugenics and ethnic cleansing.....
Wait for it....
[deleted] t1_itpxm29 wrote
We’ve been playing god with dog breeds for over a thousand years. Lol @ eugenics like this is some kind of Nazi experiment. We created the breed by selective breeding, we can admit we made an error and let it die off. We already practiced eugenics in every dog breed we have made dummy. My mom’s lab is a result of eugenics, just like my sister’s pit.
I don’t particularly care whether it’s genes, training, or the color of their nose. When one breed is responsible for the majority of fatal dog attacks, you just get rid of the breed. There’s hundreds of other breeds to choose from that don’t kill 30-40 people every year, with almost 1:3 of those being children.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itt11oj wrote
>We’ve been playing god with dog breeds for over a thousand years. Lol @ eugenics like this is some kind of Nazi experiment. We created the breed by selective breeding,
No, dude. It's just the next intellectual mistake in the line of thinking that you are wrongly following.
You have fundamentally misunderstood genetics and behavior. And that's fine because you're not a zoologist or veterinarian.
It's not fine though when you're being blatantly manipulated into defending the exact false logic that actual Nazis used to justify the Holocaust, including the false concepts of racial hygiene and biological determinism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism
Do you recognize and agree that you are saying identical things about races of dogs as Hitler and the Nazis said about races of people?
Now that it has been directly pointed out to you, do you see how your messaging might be used by foreign intelligence services as they run social media campaigns to amplify extreme, far right ideology, such as racial hygiene and biological determinism?
Do you now accept you are fundamentally wrong about the science of genetics and behavior and you sound indistinguishable from someone arguing the earth is flat?
Do you accept that you were demonstrably incorrect about the history of the breed and what it was selectively breed for?
And finally do you appreciate how selective breeding of domesticated animals and man's best friend is not the same as doing it to man?
I don't find your dangerous and uninformed reasoning funny at all. I find it stupid and immature.
[deleted] t1_itt1rlr wrote
Lol! You one crazy goober.
mattyzucks t1_ito03to wrote
I weep for those children. Scary that you teach kids
[deleted] t1_ito0hbp wrote
You are babbling. Implying that being against a breed of animal as a pet makes me a psycho or a bad teacher. Yea, I’m a bad teacher because I don’t think we need the single breed of dog around that’s responsible for 40/50 fatal dog attacks each year.
Someone needs a quick trip to the therapist. You are getting absurdly triggered by people having an opinion.
pittiedaddy t1_itnu5jg wrote
Not even remotely true since it's state law that towns cannot discriminate against any breed.
[deleted] t1_itnupio wrote
No, that applies to municipalities passing ordinances, not apartment complexes. The latter are free to make any regulations they like.
Reading my lease rn lol, pits are banned. Also includes everything from Rottweilers to Akitas. People ignore the rules pretty frequently but its right in the lease. I live in Stamford for reference.
pittiedaddy t1_itnvlcy wrote
>Most residential communities
You made it sound like residential neighborhoods. Yes individual complexes and landlords can. Hell I rented places here that only allow cats and no dogs.
[deleted] t1_itnvwdc wrote
Changed. They’re banned in almost every complex in the city. Wish people actually followed those restrictions but 🤷🏼♂️
Ordinary_Guitar_5074 t1_itnxmlo wrote
That’s dumb. They should have done the opposite. They should ban pit bulls on the state level.
[deleted] t1_itnxsmp wrote
I think pre 2013, towns could make laws banning them.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itpv9pw wrote
Laws have to have a rational basis to hold up.
Ordinary_Guitar_5074 t1_itpxmks wrote
You mean like data and statistics about which breed is involved in the most attacks? About which breed is currently the most abused? About which breed currently occupies shelters in the greatest number? About which breeds have the strongest jaws and which tend to inflict the worst injuries? Because 100% I agree with you that that data supports such a law.
Ordinary_Guitar_5074 t1_itpxryq wrote
If you can ban assault rifles you can ban pit bulls. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee your right to a dog.
BeadyEyedThieves t1_itpz5zi wrote
4.7 million dog bites in the US annually, 800k requiring medical attention. Dozens of deaths, most of which are from shitbulls. Seems pretty rational to me.
Dogs should be banned outright, they're fucking nuisance creatures, and disgustingly unhygienic. One barking dog ruins an entire neighborhood's right to peace and quiet, and it's practically impossible to find one without some stupid asshole that wants all the positives and none of the responsibility. Fuck every dog owner on earth. Most self absorbed, vapid douchebags to exist.
No, your dog isn't interesting and nothing about it makes you interesting. Your a slave to an ungrateful, nuisance shitbeast that only "likes" you because you feed it. Such a great friend.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itq3zpd wrote
You're actually just insane.
BeadyEyedThieves t1_itq93m1 wrote
Dogs suck and their owners suck even more. Two entities begging for attention at all costs.
pittiedaddy t1_itnu0na wrote
You have to call and ask. My last landlord was dog friendly and when we adopted ours (yes we asked first because the shelter required it) all he asked us to do was carry a higher liability rider on our renters insurance. It cost me a whopping $10/ month extra to bump up my liability to $500k.
bombbad15 t1_itnqmxg wrote
I don’t work up that way, but often times 100% rental communities tend to have very lax pet policies
mkt853 t1_itnvtum wrote
Try the 305.
Time_Yam301 t1_ito16vv wrote
New Have County has one of the lowest apartment vacancy rates in the country...
Specialist_Waltz5560 t1_ito587y wrote
If you reach out to private owners you could try to see if they signs accept a pet rent & pet fee. That’s what my wife & I did in our last apartment
[deleted] t1_itnq7a6 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_itq37lk wrote
[removed]
Money_Whisperer t1_ittfngz wrote
As someone whose been assaulted by a pitbull just trying to take out the garbage, keep those fuckin things away from apartment complexes with children or vulnerable elderly.
[deleted] t1_itnxb5i wrote
More and more complexes are banning them thankfully. Hopefully we do the smart thing and declare them a vicious breed like England. 10 years of being illegal to breed and forced neutering and the breed will cease to exist.
I like the two pits in my life, but they are obviously an error in human pet breeding. Lots of health issues and an inbred desire to go from angry or scared to straight up murder. Sweet and loyal, but not worth the risk.
I certainly don’t want them in my apartment/condo complex - I have small children.