i guess i'm a criminal at heart

Question:
 http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=b168b895-aa9a-4660-9082-3e9ea49b37d6&k=5834
Troubled owners, troubled dogs?
Crime, choice of pet linked
Dalson Chen and Sonja Puzic, with files from ShannonProudfoot, CanWest
News Service
Windsor Star; with files from CanWest News Service
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
People who own "high-risk" dogs such as pit bulls are more likely to
have past criminal convictions than other dog owners, says a new
study.
But Natalie Kemeny, a local pit bull owner and advocate ( Advocates
for the Underdog ), was shocked by the suggestion.
"Where we live, and the people that I know, that information is truly
false.
"I'm not a criminal," said the 36-year-old.
"I've never even gone through a red light. And I own a pit bull-type
dog."
In a study published in the current issue of the Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, researchers from the University of Cincinnati
examined a sample of 355 dogs and their owners.
The authors categorized as "high-risk" all pit-bull-type dogs, as well
as dogs of breeds that had killed or seriously injured a person
without provocation, or killed another dog.
Of the sample group, 164 dogs including pit bulls, Rottweilers, Akitas
and chows fell into the "high-risk" category. Every one of their
owners was found to have at least one criminal conviction or traffic
citation on record.
Only 27 per cent of those with "low-risk" dogs such as beagles,
spaniels and collies were found to have past legal troubles.
The study also suggests that owners of "high-risk" canines are almost
seven times more likely than other dog owners to have been convicted
of aggressive crimes, eight times more likely to have drug
convictions, and five times more likely to have alcohol-related
convictions.
"For some persons, owning a dog that has a reputation for aggression
is considered a highly desirable feature," the study notes.
But Kemeny said she'd like to know how the researchers collected their
sample group.
"Where did they go to do this survey, the local prison?"
Co-founder of the Windsor-based pit bull rescue coalition Advocates
for the Underdog, Kemeny said she doesn't know any owners of pit
bull-type dogs that have ever been convicted of a crime.
"I, myself, am a professional. My rescue partner works for RE/MAX
realty," she said. "We have over 850 people on our mailing list, and
we know them all.... They all have full-time professional jobs."
Although pit bull ownership is restricted by Ontario legislation,
Windsor city council preceded the province by introducing a city-wide
ban on pit bulls in September 2004.
The city's licensing commissioner, Diane Sibley, said the new study
was the first she had heard of a correlation between "high-risk" dog
breeds and their owners' criminal records.
"There was nothing like this when we (introduced the pit bull ban),"
she said. "In fact, that was one of the criticisms we received -- that
there wasn't enough information to impose the ban."
Sibley said she was "definitely interested" in learning more about the
study and said she would look into it.
Windsor-Essex County Humane Society president Doug Jeffery also said
the study sounds interesting, but warned that people should be careful
about how they interpret it. "There are pit bulls that are legal in
Windsor that are not owned by criminals. I know those people," he
said.
Jeffery said the bite of any large dog can be severe, and the matter
comes down to the irresponsibility of owners -- "whether it be someone
with a criminal background or someone who is just stupid, to put it
very bluntly."
STUDY QUESTIONED
Owners of dogs like pit bulls and Rottweilers are being as badly
stereotyped as their pets, says a local dog trainer.
"I know people that own pit bull terriers that are police officers,"
said Mike Beckett, owner of 21st Century K9 and a professional dog
trainer for 10 years.
A past Rottweiler owner and current pit bull owner, Beckett said he
feels the University of Cincinnati study is "one more thing for people
to hate these dogs, and to hate the people that own these dogs."
In classes, he's never seen pit bull or Rottweiler owners to be
criminal types.
Beckett said he was once walking a muzzled pit bull when they were
confronted by an aggressive dachshund and its irate owner. "Just
because I choose a dog like this, doesn't mean I can't walk down the
street too."
-- Dalson Chen
the study referred to in the story is located here (http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/21/12/1616)

Answer:
AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH......Crap, it's all crap. So now if you own an APBT or other large dog your automatically going to be assumed a criminal. Bullhockey.
I own APBT's, I am not a criminal, I have tattoo's, I am not a criminal....stereotypical judgements.
Worst I ever had was a parking ticket, so I must be a dangerous offender now???? Too much. Reality check required.

Answer:
Um, I think it should be looked at the opposite way. Criminals might be more likely to own pit-type dogs because they think those dogs are tough, or they fight them or something. Saying a person is more likely to be a criminal because they own a certain type of dog is nothing more than stereotyping, and we are all getting a little tired of that by now.:(

Answer:
I agree dumb. To me its if you are a criminal and have a dog, its most likely to be a pitbull or other stereotyped dog but not if you have a pit bull then you are a criminal.

Answer:
I guess we'll have to keep our eye on you Elegy ;)
Unfortunately there does seem to be that element of society that get dogs as some sort of accessory or to make a statement.
Some morons want to get a "tough dog" like a Pitt, a rottie or a GSD maybe a doberman, because they think it makes them look tough. But of course there are also perfectly normal, responsible, lovely people who own pittbulls and then there are a few stupid people like I see at my dog park who own pittbullish dogs that they have "rescued" and they believe that love and coming to the park will cure their dog of it's aggression and that he only aggresses because "he was abused" :rolleyes:
I just hate stereotypes-period.
Maybe someone should do a study looking at the correlation between owner IQ and "chihuahua type" dogs carried around town in purses, dressed up in pink outfits with painted nails :p

Answer:
argh! that makes me mad

Answer:
I guess we'll have to keep our eye on you Elegy ;)
darn straight! i might start holding up banks in my spare time.
as for myself, i've never so much as had a traffic ticket. i've been drunk all of once, and the only drug addiction problem i have is with caffeine. a total danger to society! that's me! :yikes:

Answer:
darn straight! i might start holding up banks in my spare time.
as for myself, i've never so much as had a traffic ticket. i've been drunk all of once, and the only drug addiction problem i have is with caffeine. a total danger to society! that's me! :yikes:
ah yes, but remember you've got those pitbulls. It's only a matter of time before you'll be listening to gansta music and before you know it you're packin heat:D so ridiculous

Answer:
who needs to pack heat when i have two weapons of mass destruction on leashes?!

Answer:
Why is anyone taking offense at the suggestion that pit bull owners are more likely to be criminals? Doesn't that support the argument that the major reason for the breed's bad rep is bad owners?

Answer:
Anyone, can be a criminal, and anyone can own a dog. It should not matter what breed it is. My daughter, Knows this Mike Beckett She tells me he's an awsome trainer. No, he's right too many false attitudes and judgements there!

Answer:
Why is anyone taking offense at the suggestion that pit bull owners are more likely to be criminals? Doesn't that support the argument that the major reason for the breed's bad rep is bad owners?
because it ignores the kajillion pit bull owners who are NOT criminals and whose dogs are not problem dogs.
because the whole idea is largely fear-mongering.
because the study itself was pretty lousy. look at the breed numbers in the study- there's ONE labrador retriever. there are 153 pit bulls. accurate representation of the dog population of joe average city? hamilton county cites the german shepherd dog as the second most popular breed, yet there are none in the study at all. there are 8 mixed breeds. and what the heck is a "terrier"?? the american pit bull terrier is technically a terrier breed, after all.
what do you think the average person is really going to take away from an article like that? seriously.

Answer:
It's a stupid article, agreed, but I think what they were getting at is that those who are the "criminal type" are more likely to be drawn to Pits and Rotties than beagles, spaniels or collies. I'm going to have a Rottie sometime in the next 10 years, I am by far not a criminal. But I also am choosing the dog for reasons other than how "bad-ass" of a dog it is.

Answer:
Sorry but I am from Ohio and the article rings true. I've never seen or heard of pit owners outside of high crime areas. Unfortunately it is the reality around here.

Answer:
Hm...
What I think is being said is that people who are criminals are more likely to get a dog typically known (most of the time wrongly) for it's aggression, rather than saying that all APBT owners are destined to be criminals.
I think it's similar to the way people assume that all chihuahuas are owned by ditsy women who carry it round in a bag and dress it in tiaras. Sure, it's not the case, as anyone who is involved with dogs knows, but it's a popular opinion in society.
Unfortunately, for some reason (forgive me, I don't know a lot about the breed and so I'm not sure why they are picked on in such a way) APBT have been attacked by the media and taken on as a viciously bred dog owned by criminals. One thing that irritates me, and I'm not even involved with these dogs, is the way that the media jumps on a rottie bite, but will ignore a labrador bite. It's just the way people think.
I think what I'm trying to say is, yes, criminals are more likely to own dogs such as APBT (let's face it, more likely than owning a chihuahua) who have sadly been labelled as being vicious dogs. However, owners of such breeds are in no way more likely to be a criminal. It's a totally different investigation.

Answer:
It's so easy to manipulate perceptions by manipulating statistics . . . :rolleyes:

Answer:
because it ignores the kajillion pit bull owners who are NOT criminals and whose dogs are not problem dogs. because the whole idea is largely fear-mongering....what do you think the average person is really going to take away from an article like that? seriously.
Seriously? That you pit bull types are a bunch of whiners. Notice the lack of complaints from Akita fanciers or chow owners. From what I read, the study was nothing worse than what pit bull people have said often about their breed - that it attracts the very worst sort of people. It didn't draw conclusions about the breed(s), it didn't call them evil or inherently vicious, it just said that people who owned them are disproportionately likely to be criminals. And that's true, and it's been said many times here and elsewhere as a defense of pit bulls. I have reread the study as described in that article you quoted:
"In a study published in the current issue of the Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, researchers from the University of Cincinnati
examined a sample of 355 dogs and their owners. The authors categorized as "high-risk" all pit-bull-type dogs, as well as dogs of breeds that had killed or seriously injured a person without provocation, or killed another dog.
Of the sample group, 164 dogs including pit bulls, Rottweilers, Akitas
and chows fell into the "high-risk" category. Every one of their
owners was found to have at least one criminal conviction or traffic
citation on record. Only 27 per cent of those with "low-risk" dogs such as beagles, spaniels and collies were found to have past legal troubles.
The study also suggests that owners of "high-risk" canines are almost
seven times more likely than other dog owners to have been convicted
of aggressive crimes, eight times more likely to have drug
convictions, and five times more likely to have alcohol-related
convictions.
"For some persons, owning a dog that has a reputation for aggression
is considered a highly desirable feature," the study notes."
and I see no basis for the complaints. On the contrary, it's a stretch to find anything to complain about. The study isn't saying anyone who buys a pit is a criminal or a deviant. For people with such impervious dogs, pit bull owners seem to have very thin skins.

Answer:
Seriously? That you pit bull types are a bunch of whiners. Notice the lack of complaints from Akita fanciers or chow owners. From what I read, the study was nothing worse than what pit bull people have said often about their breed - that it attracts the very worst sort of people. It didn't draw conclusions about the breed(s), it didn't call them evil or inherently vicious, it just said that people who owned them are disproportionately likely to be criminals. And that's true, and it's been said many times here and elsewhere as a defense of pit bulls. I have reread the study as described in that article you quoted:
"In a study published in the current issue of the Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, researchers from the University of Cincinnati
examined a sample of 355 dogs and their owners. The authors categorized as "high-risk" all pit-bull-type dogs, as well as dogs of breeds that had killed or seriously injured a person without provocation, or killed another dog.
Of the sample group, 164 dogs including pit bulls, Rottweilers, Akitas
and chows fell into the "high-risk" category. Every one of their
owners was found to have at least one criminal conviction or traffic
citation on record. Only 27 per cent of those with "low-risk" dogs such as beagles, spaniels and collies were found to have past legal troubles.
The study also suggests that owners of "high-risk" canines are almost
seven times more likely than other dog owners to have been convicted
of aggressive crimes, eight times more likely to have drug
convictions, and five times more likely to have alcohol-related
convictions.
"For some persons, owning a dog that has a reputation for aggression
is considered a highly desirable feature," the study notes."
and I see no basis for the complaints. On the contrary, it's a stretch to find anything to complain about. The study isn't saying anyone who buys a pit is a criminal or a deviant. For people with such impervious dogs, pit bull owners seem to have very thin skins.
Amen to that! :hail:

Answer:
one of the biggest problems of that study i have is statistically more people have been bitten by LOW RISK dogs (particlarly spaniel) then by pits or bully breeds...
its just the damage done by those low risk breeds is less likely to be reported.
i myself have met way more agressive cocker (and my family owns a cocker) and Chihuahuas (and between us we own 3 of those) than agressive pitties!!!!!
ive also seen more dog agressive cockers than pits...
and while yes a criminal is more likely to go with a larger stronger breed, i presonally know of a drug dealer who own a chihuahua, his reasoning being people are less likely to suspect a little tiny chihuahua and the dog is a wonderfull alarm!!!
so it doesnt always ring true...
and personally if i lived in a generally high crime area id have my chihuahuas as my alarm/attack dogs and a mastif or bully type breed just because they look scarier...mabe thats why more poeple have bully breeds in higher crime areas, they FEEL safer haivng that breed, not because there ALL criminals.
i think this study must have been done in a generally rough/high crime area typical "dog fight area"...because around here most of the "trouble" types actually have "low risk" breeds possibly for the entire purpose of staying under the radar.

Answer:
It is not a good study. To apply this to a larger population "abstract: significant marker of general deviance" one needs a proper random sample. I don't think they have it here, since they went through the cited dogs list. They did this because many pitbulls are not registered, yet I doubt half the dogs in the county are pits. 150-9 Pit vs all spaniels (Cockers anyone?) is representative of the whole population.
All this ignores what is high risk, ect.
You might be able to say that the owners of these cited dogs might be prone to crime (depending on how they mined that list). You can not say that you can identify a deviant by their dog.
I should have gone into statistics instead of science if its that easy to get a paper published.

Answer:
It is not a good study. To apply this to a larger population "abstract: significant marker of general deviance" one needs a proper random sample. I don't think they have it here, since they went through the cited dogs list. They did this because many pitbulls are not registered, yet I doubt half the dogs in the county are pits. 150-9 Pit vs all spaniels (Cockers anyone?) is representative of the whole population.

All this ignores what is high risk, ect.

You might be able to say that the owners of these cited dogs might be prone to crime (depending on how they mined that list). You can not say that you can identify a deviant by their dog.

I should have gone into statistics instead of science if its that easy to get a paper published.

;) LOL! I think you've figured it out, Psy . . . "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Answer:
The thing is, stats are quite useful, when properly done. I finding mildly interesting (although altogether too boring to do) actually. Still, the method these guys chose baffles me. I've read through that part of the study multiple times, and there is not a logical reason for some of this. Why are traffic stops cited as criminal activity? I guess I'm a criminal in 3 states for paid speeding tickets.
Now, read the last line of the abstract again: "ownership of a high risk dog can be a significant marker for general deviance and should be an element considered when assessing a risk for child endangerment." Yes, if they just said that owning a LABRADOR should be considered if child services wants to determine whether you are harming your children.
What it should have said (based on reality and their sample) if their labrador (or pitbull, ect) has been cited or been one who killed another dog (the lab example) it is an indicator of potential deviance.

Answer:
I'll admit it, I've had a traffic citation in my lifetime. I rarely drink, dont do drugs, not a criminal but I have been in a hurry at the wrong time, wrong place. That must be what made me want a Chow.

Answer:
Doesn't that support the argument that the major reason for the breed's bad rep is bad owners?
Of course not...every pitbull attack, ever, even back when they were used exclusively as the breed's intention (fighting in the bull pit), has always been by a dog owned by very reputable, caring, intellegent, perfect law abiding citizens. Didn't you know that?
In all reality, if you find this study offensive you really need to look into this place I live in called "reality". Unfortunately, thugs like big beefy things like guns with big bullits, cars with big engines, knives with big blades, and dogs with big, bad attitudes. It's a stereotype and the thing about stereotypes is that they're more often than not true (otherwise they wouldn't be stereotypes). The majoraty of pit bull owners out there will be involved in quastionable activities...it's just how it is. Doesn't mean that all pit bull owners are low-lifes...what it means is that the occasional superior pit bull owner is an exception to the stereotype.
I'm proud of those exceptions.

Answer:
Seriously? That you pit bull types are a bunch of whiners. Notice the lack of complaints from Akita fanciers or chow owners.
when there are as many akitas or chow chows in this world as there are pit bulls, and their breeds are as overbred and exploited as mine, then we can have this discussion.

Answer:
I too read that ridiculous piece of fluff. I guess most of my good friends are criminals too. Living in the suburbs. We are not criminals, and still love the APBT.

Answer:
Seriously? That you pit bull types are a bunch of whiners.
I see no basis for the complaints. On the contrary, it's a stretch to find anything to complain about. The study isn't saying anyone who buys a pit is a criminal or a deviant. For people with such impervious dogs, pit bull owners seem to have very thin skins.
Are you for real ? Do you have any idea what it's like to be discriminated against? to have people make false judgements about you based on nothing but myth and stereotype constantly perpetuated by the media?
Can you imagine what it would be like to have to muzzle your dog anytime it was outside of your house simply because it was a certain breed ? Can you imagine knowing that all strays of your favorite breed would be culled ? Can you imagine if ownership of YOUR favorite breed was in danger of being banned altogether ?
Three years ago if I had seen a pit bull walking down the street in my neighborhood, I would have been up in arms, afraid for my child, my dog and my family's safety. I would have stared at that person and thought " what the heck is your problem ? Why would you own a dog like that?"
I am glad so that responsible, knowlegeable pit bull owners are out there spreading the word, the TRUTH about pit bulls. I have learned a LOT from them. I am grateful.
The people and groups I'm talking about aren't whiners just wanting to complain, they are trying to educate people about the realities of their breed. They are NOT saying that pit bulls are for everyone and should be playing with every dog at the dop park- quite the contrary. They are trying to teach the ignorant general public what they need to know so we can all live together safely and happily and they can ensure the safety and future of their breed. They are also trying to educate ignorant pit bull owners about the realities of owning a dog with dog-dog aggression. I seriously don't know how anyone could fault them for that.
Very few people who live in my area AREN'T misinformed about pitbulls. We see both sides--people freaking out if a pitbull exists in our city, assuming any pit bull is a ticking time bomb or killing machine and well intentioned by ignorant people who "rescue" pitbulls believing that their dog-dog aggression is only because they were "abused" and now that they live in loving homes they are safe to go to the dog park and play with 10 strange dogs every day.
There is SOOOO much misinformation about this breed. I applaud the pitbull community for trying to do something about that. It must be exhausting.

Answer:
Do you have any idea what it's like to be discriminated against?
There's a difference between discrimination and self inflicted hardship. Minoraties are discriminated against...you chose a dog with a bad rep.
Further, casablanca is right. The article says there's a common link between the dogs and people with criminal histories. The article, at no point, says that all pit owners have criminal histories.

Answer:
There's a difference between discrimination and self inflicted hardship. Minoraties are discriminated against...you chose a dog with a bad rep.
Further, casablanca is right. The article says there's a common link between the dogs and people with criminal histories. The article, at no point, says that all pit owners have criminal histories.
I didn't "choose a dog with a bad rep" as you can see from my profile and my siggy, I own an aussie and a border collie.
I DON'T know what it's like to be discriminated against, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Pitbulls ARE discriminated against in Ontario and in other places with breed specific legislation. It's the same principle as prejudice and discrimintion in people based on race or gender. If you don't think that BSL is discrimination- you should check the definition. You may agree with BSL but it's still discrimintion.

Answer:
Sam, I totally agree with you.
It is horrible to be put in some stereotype or discriminated against.
I have had SO many people tell I "you can't" because you are young.
My neighbour who owns a rambunctious golden said she didn't trust me with him because I was a teen, after I offered to walk him.
It feels awful :(.
~Tucker

Answer:
I didn't "choose a dog with a bad rep" as you can see from my profile and my siggy, I own an aussie and a border collie.
I DON'T know what it's like to be discriminated against, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Pitbulls ARE discriminated against in Ontario and in other places with breed specific legislation. It's the same principle as prejudice and discrimintion in people based on race or gender. If you don't think that BSL is discrimination- you should check the definition. You may agree with BSL but it's still discrimintion.
You'll have to excuse me...I assumed from your post that were now, or at one timw was, a pit owner.
Pitbulls themselves are discriminated against...almost everywhere...but everyone who owns one has chosen to be discriminated against as well. Pit owners have chosn a dog with a bad rep and, whehter they fit the stereotype or not, will be treated as though they DO. Sad fact of life.
And dog issues can not be compared to people issues.

Answer:
which is why I'll never seek out and get a pit... They're awesome dogs; one of my favorite breeds, but I can't handle the discrimination and accusations that come along with owning one of these beautiful dogs. I get worked up enough by simply walking my GSD
((haven't seen you in a while Makenzie ;))

Answer:
And dog issues can not be compared to people issues.

Very true, Mak . . . it's rare that the dogs deserve the "issues" they get hung with . . . people, well, we just aren't as nice as they are ;)

Answer:
which is why I'll never seek out and get a pit... They're awesome dogs; one of my favorite breeds, but I can't handle the discrimination and accusations that come along with owning one of these beautiful dogs. I get worked up enough by simply walking my GSD
((haven't seen you in a while Makenzie ;))
and ironically, this is why I love this breed! I thrive on defending them, attending every city council meeting I can, to speak up on behalf of them, and writing articles and letters about BSL. When people see me walking my APBT and say, "Oh what a fabulous looking dog. What breed is it?" and I say an APBT, the look on 90% of their faces is too pricelees to wanna miss!;) ...ALWAYS a Kodak moment!

Answer:
Whan I took Bella (cane Corso) to a country vet for the first time, the vet opened the door, Took one look at her and asked "is that a pit bull?" The look on her face, pure fear and loathing.I told her no, shes a Cane Corso, she had no idea what that was, and was a bit skeptical, but she let us in. I have no doubt that if bella was a pit bull she would have closed the door in my face.I feel so bad for the discrimination responsible owners and their dogs face.
'

Answer:
Wow.
Just to let you know, I NEVER said "Oooo, I want to own one of them there pit bulls so I can have everyone hate me, yell at me in public when I've done nothing more than look in their general direction, etc.". In fact, I got started with APBTs because I loved the dogs themselves. (imagine that......) I loved the athleticism, I loved their loving ways, & I loved their clownish nature. THOSE are the reasons I got these dogs.
Nowhere did I check a box stating that I signed up for discrimination, hatred, & having people feel they have the right to yell obsenities at me in public. Not only do I not tolerate it, I have, do, & will continue to fight back.
That's like saying my oldest brother chose to be discriminated against & should accept it because he married a woman of another race.
If I so called "choose" to be discriminated against & hated, where the hell is the box that I can check off that I "unchoose" it. Oh yeah, that would be if I put a bullet in my dogs' heads on national television.

Answer:
Oh yeah, that would be if I put a bullet in my dogs' heads on national television.
Wow. Drama queen much.

Answer:
Are you for real ? Do you have any idea what it's like to be discriminated against? to have people make false judgements about you based on nothing but myth and stereotype constantly perpetuated by the media? Can you imagine what it would be like to have to muzzle your dog anytime it was outside of your house simply because it was a certain breed ? Can you imagine knowing that all strays of your favorite breed would be culled ? Can you imagine if ownership of YOUR favorite breed was in danger of being banned altogether?
Yes, I can. Because I feel as if the next dog I'll buy will have to be a big, powerful breed so I can walk her in something approaching peace. I love my smallish collie breeds and mixes, they're my dogs. But I'm increasingly afraid for their safety on our walks. And that's because a hell of a lot of these pit bull people you applaud so loudly are irresponsible a$$holes. Not just the people who beat their dogs or starve them or fight them or whatever. The ones who think that because their breed's history is one of dog-aggression, that's a free pass for anything that might happen in an 'oops, got out the gate' moment. Because things happen, dogs get out, and somehow, I have a hard time accepting a brutal attack as simply a facet of a breed's background.
But a whole lot of the people who are mouthing the 'truth' about it being a sin to kill pit bulls are very, very accomodating about the issue of pit bulls killing other dogs. Until I see pit people taking seriously the TRUTH that they have to eliminate DA in their breed, I'll continue to be skeptical of their love of dogs, and I will continue to refuse to jump on the 'save the pitties' bandwagon.