zazie Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 (edited) Man I really want this kid to work out. Off the field, he's everything you want, and works hard on his craft. If it somehow doesn't work out, it won't be for lack of effort, or stupidity. Go EJ. Losman raked leaves too. Edited September 21, 2014 by zazie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 (edited) Losman raked leaves too. I thought about bringing up Losman, then reconsidered. I figured, why ruin a perfectly good and positive thread, that has nothing to do with his on-field ability. I figured it would be Mr Weo, or Dwagg who would ruin the thread. It is true, Losman was all-in with Buffalo and seemed to be a very good guy. I rooted like hell for him, too. He didn't work out. This thread is all about EJ being, seemingly, a great guy. And that it is a pleasure to root for him. Edited September 21, 2014 by The Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnwalter Posted September 25, 2014 Author Share Posted September 25, 2014 this week: vernon davis http://www.nfl.com/videos/mans-best-friend/0ap3000000400510/Man-s-Best-Friend-Vernon-Davis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Beebe Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Well said. Humans go around killing, raping, and abusing each other. Should we ban humans? Sometimes you have to wonder when you watch the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 The biggest nastiest mainstream breeds, like pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Dobermans, all make fabulous pets if they are brought up well and trained to be nice. Rotties are amazing dogs if treated right. Go Titan! Yeah, but ultimately any living thing that you can train to attack another human being is a weapon......and dogs like that are very LETHAL weapons. A thorough background check and very special license should be required for such dangerous animals as above, along with a huge amount of insurance and an understanding that should your dog get free and injure someone that the registered owner will be subject to charges commensurate to the damage inflicted....including murder. This would still allow people to keep them as pets, but at their own high risk. There are plenty of other, less dangersous dog breeds out there that don't kill human beings and also make fabulous pets. As for the guy that wants to ban human beings.......majority rules. A few self-loathing pervs don't dictate policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Yeah, but ultimately any living thing that you can train to attack another human being is a weapon......and dogs like that are very LETHAL weapons. A thorough background check and very special license should be required for such dangerous animals as above, along with a huge amount of insurance and an understanding that should your dog get free and injure someone that the registered owner will be subject to charges commensurate to the damage inflicted....including murder. This would still allow people to keep them as pets, but at their own high risk. There are plenty of other, less dangersous dog breeds out there that don't kill human beings and also make fabulous pets. As for the guy that wants to ban human beings.......majority rules. A few self-loathing pervs don't dictate policy. Breed specific regulations? Yeah, no. My pit Betty: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 GD right big cat. We dont need no stinking rules. My Zoe rocks the bills neck gear too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Yeah, but ultimately any living thing that you can train to attack another human being is a weapon......and dogs like that are very LETHAL weapons. A thorough background check and very special license should be required for such dangerous animals as above, along with a huge amount of insurance and an understanding that should your dog get free and injure someone that the registered owner will be subject to charges commensurate to the damage inflicted....including murder. This would still allow people to keep them as pets, but at their own high risk. There are plenty of other, less dangersous dog breeds out there that don't kill human beings and also make fabulous pets. As for the guy that wants to ban human beings.......majority rules. A few self-loathing pervs don't dictate policy. anyway this is not correct. Even the nicest and best trained dogs of these breeds have triggers that will set them into attack mode. Not always against humans but certainly against other, less formidable dogs.. Pits are dangerous, and need to be muzzled. Sorry for the truth here. And Rotts, for sure too. Dobermans go crazy later in life, I have heard their brain gets too big for their skull, not sure if that is an urban myth or not, but I have known 2 people whose peaceful Dobermans went nuts and had to be put down. It is not how you raise your particuloar dog, it is how the dogs were selected for violent behaviour by other humans over the last 10,000 years, their behaviour is not always learned, often instinctual. And their instinct, bred for, is violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 As someone who just had to put down the canine love of his life, this made me smile (and shed a tear or two out of loss). Here's to EJ and Titan becoming Buffalo fixtures for years to come.... S Sorry to hear it, man. Its one of the hardest..maybe THE hardest thing I've ever had to do. It ruined me for days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 anyway this is not correct. Even the nicest and best trained dogs of these breeds have triggers that will set them into attack mode. Not always against humans but certainly against other, less formidable dogs.. Pits are dangerous, and need to be muzzled. Sorry for the truth here. And Rotts, for sure too. Dobermans go crazy later in life, I have heard their brain gets too big for their skull, not sure if that is an urban myth or not, but I have known 2 people whose peaceful Dobermans went nuts and had to be put down. It is not how you raise your particuloar dog, it is how the dogs were selected for violent behaviour by other humans over the last 10,000 years, their behaviour is not always learned, often instinctual. And their instinct, bred for, is violence. False. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 False. uh huh. Sure. I hope your pit kills no other dog, and attacks no person. I will not rely on you to make it so, though. A 9-year (1979–88) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks in which breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (42%).[23] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[24] A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.[25] A 20-year (1979-1998) study by the American Veterinary Medical Association into fatal dog attacks on humans[26] concluded that "fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)," and that "pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half" (67%) of all the 238 recorded dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States during that period, with pit bulls accounting for 66 deaths. They also wrote that: "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."[26] A 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45%).[27] Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were most often involved in these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) of the attacks were by pit bulls.[28] In 45% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.[28] A 5-year (2001–05) review of dog attack victims admitted to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia determined that pit bull terriers were implicated in more than half of the bites where breed was identified. Of the 269 patients where breed was identified, 137 (51%) were attacked by pit bulls.[29] The authors wrote: "...the overwhelming number of bites involving pit bull terriers in this study and others certainly has some degree of validity when it comes to identifying bite-prone breeds. Pit bull terriers, German shepherds, and Rottweilers were the offending breeds implicated in our study, and have accounted for the majority of dog bites according to other investigators."[29] A review of the medical literature found that pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds were involved in 42–45% of dog attacks.[30] Fatalities were most often reported when children were attacked, with 70% of victims being under the age of 10.[30] Some other studies on the number of human deaths caused by dog bite trauma have surveyed news media stories for reports of dog-bite-related fatalities. This methodology is subject to potential errors, as some fatal attacks may not have been reported, a study might not find all relevant news reports, and the dog breed might be misidentified.[31] Courts in the United States[32][33] and Canada[34][35] have ruled that expert identification, when using published breed standards, is sufficient for the enforcement of breed-specific legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 uh huh. Sure. I hope your pit kills no other dog, and attacks no person. I will not rely on you to make it so, though. A 9-year (1979–88) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks in which breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (42%).[23] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[24] A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.[25] A 20-year (1979-1998) study by the American Veterinary Medical Association into fatal dog attacks on humans[26] concluded that "fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)," and that "pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half" (67%) of all the 238 recorded dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States during that period, with pit bulls accounting for 66 deaths. They also wrote that: "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."[26] A 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45%).[27] Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were most often involved in these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) of the attacks were by pit bulls.[28] In 45% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.[28] A 5-year (2001–05) review of dog attack victims admitted to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia determined that pit bull terriers were implicated in more than half of the bites where breed was identified. Of the 269 patients where breed was identified, 137 (51%) were attacked by pit bulls.[29] The authors wrote: "...the overwhelming number of bites involving pit bull terriers in this study and others certainly has some degree of validity when it comes to identifying bite-prone breeds. Pit bull terriers, German shepherds, and Rottweilers were the offending breeds implicated in our study, and have accounted for the majority of dog bites according to other investigators."[29] A review of the medical literature found that pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds were involved in 42–45% of dog attacks.[30] Fatalities were most often reported when children were attacked, with 70% of victims being under the age of 10.[30] Some other studies on the number of human deaths caused by dog bite trauma have surveyed news media stories for reports of dog-bite-related fatalities. This methodology is subject to potential errors, as some fatal attacks may not have been reported, a study might not find all relevant news reports, and the dog breed might be misidentified.[31] Courts in the United States[32][33] and Canada[34][35] have ruled that expert identification, when using published breed standards, is sufficient for the enforcement of breed-specific legislation. Cool stats. I don't think your ignorance (harsh, I know) can be overcome on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 uh huh. Sure. I hope your pit kills no other dog, and attacks no person. I will not rely on you to make it so, though. A 9-year (1979–88) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks in which breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (42%).[23] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[24] A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.[25] A 20-year (1979-1998) study by the American Veterinary Medical Association into fatal dog attacks on humans[26] concluded that "fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)," and that "pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half" (67%) of all the 238 recorded dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States during that period, with pit bulls accounting for 66 deaths. They also wrote that: "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."[26] A 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45%).[27] Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were most often involved in these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) of the attacks were by pit bulls.[28] In 45% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.[28] A 5-year (2001–05) review of dog attack victims admitted to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia determined that pit bull terriers were implicated in more than half of the bites where breed was identified. Of the 269 patients where breed was identified, 137 (51%) were attacked by pit bulls.[29] The authors wrote: "...the overwhelming number of bites involving pit bull terriers in this study and others certainly has some degree of validity when it comes to identifying bite-prone breeds. Pit bull terriers, German shepherds, and Rottweilers were the offending breeds implicated in our study, and have accounted for the majority of dog bites according to other investigators."[29] A review of the medical literature found that pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds were involved in 42–45% of dog attacks.[30] Fatalities were most often reported when children were attacked, with 70% of victims being under the age of 10.[30] Some other studies on the number of human deaths caused by dog bite trauma have surveyed news media stories for reports of dog-bite-related fatalities. This methodology is subject to potential errors, as some fatal attacks may not have been reported, a study might not find all relevant news reports, and the dog breed might be misidentified.[31] Courts in the United States[32][33] and Canada[34][35] have ruled that expert identification, when using published breed standards, is sufficient for the enforcement of breed-specific legislation. Cool stats. I don't think your ignorance (harsh, I know) can be overcome on this matter. But an important thing to clarify: where do you live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 (edited) Cool stats. I don't think your ignorance (harsh, I know) can be overcome on this matter. But an important thing to clarify: where do you live? Here is some info for you re artificial selection of dogs: http://www.nature.co...og-breeding-434 http://www.direwolfproject.com/selective-breeding.html Pits did not become aggressive by accident, and were not bred for some other trait and by mistake their aggression was some collateral damage. They were bred to be aggressive, specifically, over thousands of years. Maybe you don't believe in Darwin though, so the above will not be meaningful for you. For the less god-fearing among us, that is how it happened. Just like Poodles were bred for being pretty. I stay in Thailand but travel about 6 months per annum. Edited September 28, 2014 by zazie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Here is some info for you re artificial selection of dogs: http://www.nature.co...og-breeding-434 http://www.direwolfproject.com/selective-breeding.html Pits did not become aggressive by accident, and were not bred for some other trait and by mistake their aggression was some collateral damage. They were bred to be aggressive, specifically, over thousands of years. Maybe you don't believe in Darwin though, so the above will not be meaningful for you. For the less god-fearing among us, that is how it happened. Just like Poodles were bred for being pretty. I stay in Thailand but travel about 6 months per annum. If you're willing to understand why your thinking on this matter is faulty/out dated please read this: http://www.esquire.com/features/american-dog-0814 And please refrain from making faulty assumptions about my politics/religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 If you're willing to understand why your thinking on this matter is faulty/out dated please read this: http://www.esquire.c...erican-dog-0814 And please refrain from making faulty assumptions about my politics/religion. that is funny, a story about a cocker spaniel attacking a pit. that must be it! Please muzzle your dog, as it may get attacked by a cocker at any moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I don't think we need breed specific regulations or restrictions for dogs, all owners should be held responsible. We have a large umbrella policy for just such risks. I'll take my chances with my female Golden Retriever. I like my odds better than some other people's. I was told by someone heavily involved in shelters/rescue operations that 65% of dogs in shelters have some pit in them. I go to a no kill shelter on a regular basis and that seems (shockingly) to be about right. I can't swear to the actual number, but it's high and a horrible shame. Is this because of irresponsible breeding or are they just not accepted by most people as being adoptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I don't think we need breed specific regulations or restrictions for dogs, all owners should be held responsible. We have a large umbrella policy for just such risks. I'll take my chances with my female Golden Retriever. I like my odds better than some other people's. I was told by someone heavily involved in shelters/rescue operations that 65% of dogs in shelters have some pit in them. I go to a no kill shelter on a regular basis and that seems (shockingly) to be about right. I can't swear to the actual number, but it's high and a horrible shame. Is this because of irresponsible breeding or are they just not accepted by most people as being adoptable? I agree, people should have the dogs hey want. But, some breeds should have a muzzle requirement when in public, and there should be a stricter punishment if your pit gets out from the backyard, than you golden retriever does. including putting the pit down the second time it happens. Golden retrievers are great dogs! Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I agree, people should have the dogs hey want. But, some breeds should have a muzzle requirement when in public, and there should be a stricter punishment if your pit gets out from the backyard, than you golden retriever does. including putting the pit down the second time it happens. Golden retrievers are great dogs! Enjoy. So if a golden gets out and kills someone it's less than bad than a pitt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 So if a golden gets out and kills someone it's less than bad than a pitt? It is no less tragic. I also believe it is far less likely. I go with the odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts