|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 4, 2011 9:18:03 GMT -5
I got this email last night. I'm not buying this, any takers? LOL =================================== Hi Mary/Real pitbull This email serves to introduce some new research I hope you will find of interest. www.ufaw.org.uk/documents/macneil.pdf My name is Anna MacNeil-Allcock. I obtained my B.Sc. from the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada and then moved on to the Animal Welfare Program at the University of British Columbia, where I researched the behaviour of pitbulls. After some work with the BC SPCA, I became Operations Director at the Humane Society of Willamette Valley in Salem, Oregon. In 2005, I moved back to B.C. to start a family. I feel this study bridges a gap in the pitbull literature, providing a first empirical glimpse into the behaviour of regular pitbulls in regular homes. The findings are extremely interesting, in my opinion of course. Ha ha ha, I'm a little biased! If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, or Dr. Fraser at UBC. Thank you for your time, Warm regards, Anna Anna MacNeil-Allcock annamacneilallcock@  .com knowpitbulls.com To purchase the paper from UFAW please visit: www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2011/00000020/00000004/art00001Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada and then moved on to the Animal Welfare Program at the University of British Columbia, where I researched the behaviour of pitbulls. After some work with the BC SPCA, I became Operations Director at the Humane Society of Willamette Valley in Salem, Oregon. In 2005, I moved back to B.C. to start a family. I feel this study bridges a gap in the pitbull literature, providing a first empirical glimpse into the behaviour of regular pitbulls in regular homes. The findings are extremely interesting, in my opinion of course. Ha ha ha, I'm a little biased! If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, or Dr. Fraser at UBC. Thank you for your time, Warm regards, Anna Anna MacNeil-Allcock annamacneilallcock@ .com knowpitbulls.com To purchase the paper from UFAW please visit: www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2011/00000020/00000004/art00001 |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 4, 2011 9:22:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 4, 2011 9:24:33 GMT -5
Just another way to make a buck. I tend to not believe what people have to say if they can't even spell the breed name correctly. Besides, what's a "regular pitbull"?
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 4, 2011 9:25:47 GMT -5
Just another way to make a buck. I tend to not believe what people have to say if they can't even spell the breed name correctly. Besides, what's a "regular pitbull"? LOL I know, why do you think I'm not going to purchase this? I'm reading the website associated with this study now. "Unlike other common breeds of dog, pit bulls have more than one population (Overall and Love, 2001; Lockwood and Rindy); one group raised within the environmental spectrum of the average dog (pampered to abused) and the other group of fighting (street) dogs which is uniformly conditioned for extreme aggression by way of social isolation, behavioural conditioning and training exercises. (Clifford et al., 1983; Dinnage et al., 2004). " |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 4, 2011 9:30:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 4, 2011 9:33:56 GMT -5
So far it reads like faux science. I can't get past the glaring stumbling block: no clear definition on what the author means by 'pit bull'. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 4, 2011 9:36:43 GMT -5
So far it eads like faux science. I can't get past the glaring stumbling block: no clear definition on what the author means by 'pit bull'. So far, what I've read seems to make valid points. But you're right, from a logical point of view, without a clear definition of that major component, it has to be taken as invalid. What I don't understand is, what's the point of it? |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 4, 2011 9:40:04 GMT -5
Now I'm thinking the blog is just a lead-in to purchase her "research".
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 4, 2011 9:43:11 GMT -5
So far it eads like faux science. I can't get past the glaring stumbling block: no clear definition on what the author means by 'pit bull'. So far, what I've read seems to make valid points. But you're right, from a logical point of view, without a clear definition of that major component, it has to be taken as invalid. What I don't understand is, what's the point of it? Did you see this? Seems interesting but the sample size is soooo small. Abstract
Pit bull dogs are a focus of concern because of their reputation for aggression toward people and because they may be mistreated by owners who try to promote aggressive behaviour. This study followed 40 pit bulls and 42 similar-sized dogs of other breeds at an animal shelter. Three pit bulls and two dogs of other breeds were euthanised because of aggression toward people at the shelter, and the remaining 77 dogs were re-homed. Of these, one pit bull and ten dogs of other breeds were returned to the shelter because of alleged aggression. For the dogs that were retained for at least two months, owner reports of aggression in various situations (to strangers, to other dogs, etc) were similar for the two groups. Reported care of the two groups was also similar except that pit bulls were more likely to sleep on the owner’s bed and more likely to cuddle with the owner. Pit bull adopters were more likely to be under the age of 30, to rent (rather than own) their home, and to be adopting their first dog, perhaps because of a bias against pit bulls among older adopters. The study provided no evidence of greater aggression or poorer care among adopted pit bulls compared to dogs of other breeds. |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 4, 2011 9:44:24 GMT -5
Now I'm thinking the blog is just a lead-in to purchase her "research". Yes, a lot of people are doing this now. I'm telling you, people are using Pit Bulls to further their own careers, gain some sort of animal advocacy fame, or sell products (ebooks, 'studies', etc.) I'd actually like to read this study - but it's $25.00. I'd rather put that money back into RPB. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 4, 2011 9:47:37 GMT -5
So far, what I've read seems to make valid points. But you're right, from a logical point of view, without a clear definition of that major component, it has to be taken as invalid. What I don't understand is, what's the point of it? Did you see this? Seems interesting but the sample size is soooo small. Abstract
Pit bull dogs are a focus of concern because of their reputation for aggression toward people and because they may be mistreated by owners who try to promote aggressive behaviour. This study followed 40 pit bulls and 42 similar-sized dogs of other breeds at an animal shelter. Three pit bulls and two dogs of other breeds were euthanised because of aggression toward people at the shelter, and the remaining 77 dogs were re-homed. Of these, one pit bull and ten dogs of other breeds were returned to the shelter because of alleged aggression. For the dogs that were retained for at least two months, owner reports of aggression in various situations (to strangers, to other dogs, etc) were similar for the two groups. Reported care of the two groups was also similar except that pit bulls were more likely to sleep on the owner’s bed and more likely to cuddle with the owner. Pit bull adopters were more likely to be under the age of 30, to rent (rather than own) their home, and to be adopting their first dog, perhaps because of a bias against pit bulls among older adopters. The study provided no evidence of greater aggression or poorer care among adopted pit bulls compared to dogs of other breeds.Way too many assumptions for that small sampling. She also needs to separate human and animal aggression. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 4, 2011 9:49:12 GMT -5
Now I'm thinking the blog is just a lead-in to purchase her "research". Yes, a lot of people are doing this now. I'm telling you, people are using Pit Bulls to further their own careers, gain some sort of animal advocacy fame, or sell products (ebooks, 'studies', etc.) I'd actually like to read this study - but it's $25.00. I'd rather put that money back into RPB. The pit bull bandwagon. It's definately the buzz-phrase for today. I'm also tempted. Take up a collection! |
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Nov 4, 2011 10:07:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 4, 2011 10:11:44 GMT -5
I didn't read this whole thing yet, but on first review I like! The only thing is that some of the history timelines are off. BT's came AFTER APBTs. The SBT thing is also up for debate in terms of 'which came first".......... |
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Nov 4, 2011 10:13:27 GMT -5
from 2000 too
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 4, 2011 10:14:29 GMT -5
Oh yeah? I thought this was new!! I never saw it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 4, 2011 10:22:18 GMT -5
I can see pinkers all across the world trying to read this, and smashing their monitor screens screaming, "NO IT'S ALL WRONG!" |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 4, 2011 10:22:59 GMT -5
I can see pinkers all across the world trying to read this, and smashing their monitor screens screaming, "NO IT'S ALL WRONG!" ROFL!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 4, 2011 11:37:07 GMT -5
Anna sent me a copy which was very kind of her. Be back after lunch.......
|
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Nov 4, 2011 12:49:01 GMT -5
Very kind of her!!!!
|
|
I look forward to learning much here