-"all dogs have a forehead where the eyes are located, a definite shape."-
The "same" has some interesting definitons. I know that dog skulls have the same general shape, but their are certainly differences in the lengths and widths of different sections of the skull.

-"320lbs was measured as a consistant from many German shepards, multiple retrevers, and other medium and large dog breeds. The 300lbs was a consistant measurement from all breeds of pitbull. There were no measurements beyond 320lbs."-
If you would have clearly stated that these bite forces were from a single size range in dogs, I would not have argued against it. Either way, getting bit by an animal with a 300 lb per square inch bite force sucks.

-"If you were to take any mammal with the same sized skull or similar sized to a particular monitor the mammal would produce bite forces much much lower, the monitor like most lizards is designed to crush when biting, its the advantage they have."-
Yah, if you took a mammal with the same sized skull, a monitor would produce a higher bite force. But it is much more common for a dog to have a larger skull than a monitor than for a monitor to have a larger skull than a dog.

-"Many mammal predators have longer, larger teeth, the advantage they have is energy expenditure in the use of those teeth, they dont crush, they bite and shake or pull."-
You are clearly forgetting what this argument is about to say that. I am saying that a dog is more dangerous than a pet monitor and that dogs can be territorial towards humans and will sometimes attack without being cornered like rabid dogs. The fact that they have long sharp teeth only proves that they can have dangerous bites. I see that you are trying to say that monitors require a perportionately greater bite force, but that really isn't relavent to the arguement. A perportionately greater bite force does not make a monitor more of a formiddable or likely opponent than a dog. Especially considering that monitors are generally smaller than dogs.

-"I have many scars, are you saying that I should have never joined the military years ago and could have avoided sprains, cuts, burns, joint pain, a 4 inch shard of wood that was lodged through my one finger knuckle. I could have avoided being a runner years ago and avoided broken bones, sprains, etc."-
I cannot believe that you would take a debate over a dog or montior being more dangerous and skew it to sound like I was implying that you shouldn't join the military. And since this is just a forum on a computer, let's not get so personal.

-" Also about CBB and WC monitors, Ive been bit by a few of both. There is no such thing as tame CBB compared to WC monitor"-
Good for you, you can knitpick. I wasn't saying that a tame CB is necesarrily more tame than a tame W.C. And I know that there are no truly tame monitors. I was only making the point that a C.B. monitor may be more acclimated to captivity and less stressed. This makes for an easier to deal with animal and that improves the quality and ease of the taming process.

-"just like with bites Ive taken with albigs there is no amount of protection a glove could have offered"-
I never said a glove. I said "knows", "how", "to", and "handle".

-"Its funny reading the comment you posted about tame CBB monitors not giving you stitches, lol. THATS A GOOD ONE, LOL."-
Damn, I did mess up their. I meant to say that you would have a lessened medical bill (both for you and the monitor) because I still believe that the ease and quality of the taming process is improved with tame monitors and generally, CB monitors are a bit healthier (though not always).

-"Of course by all means post opinion, but have some fact or experience to back it up."-
I have experience. I don't believe there is a whole lot of fact out there.

I would like to say that I still do not take those bite pressure tests all that seriously. Animals bite with different forces for different reasons. I would need to know more information about the test. Also, you have said nothing to prove that a monitor is more likely to bite you or is a more dangerous animal than a dog. That is what this thread is really all about. I believe that dogs are generally more dangerous than pet monitors and that a dog is more likely to attak without being cornered. Also, they are more dangerous because they can contract rabies. This is not to say that I think dogs should be outlawed. I love dogs. I just think that since dogs are not persecuted much, monitors should not be either.





"Let's not forget that 300-320 is an average, and there is surely quite a difference in bit force between a German Sheapard and a Chihuahua. It is not necesarrily even a middle of the road measurement. With an average, if there are more breeds of small dogs, then the bite force average will be about the same biteforce as a small dog.
Also,I never said that dogs have a 600 or 1500 pound bite force"

320lbs was measured as a consistant from many German shepards, multiple retrevers, and other medium and large dog breeds. The 300lbs was a consistant measurement from all breeds of pitbull. There were no measurements beyond 320lbs.
As far as dogs being considered dogs, look it up, all dogs have the same skull structure, period, thats part of why they are all the same species. The wolf and the dog have a different skull, why the wolf has a stright line from nose to top of the head in bone, all dogs have a forehead where the eyes are located, a definite shape. All dogs have much smaller teeth (this was bred into them by humans who feared larger teeth), and much weaker jaws, wolves are proven to produce much higher bite forces.
What I referred to was the claims of studies done where pitbulls were showing measurements of 1500lbs.
If you were to take any mammal with the same sized skull or similar sized to a particular monitor the mammal would produce bite forces much much lower, the monitor like most lizards is designed to crush when biting, its the advantage they have.
Many mammal predators have longer, larger teeth, the advantage they have is energy expenditure in the use of those teeth, they dont crush, they bite and shake or pull.

"If you have been bitten by all the montiors that you are saying you have, you must have a lot of deep and nasty scars. Got any pics? And it might be wise to take some precautions. Have you considered selling them to someone who can handle them a little better. Having a monitor is not worth getting seriously injured. A tame captive bred animal would cost a little more, but you wont need stictches if you treat it with respect.
I am aware that monitors can do lots of damage with their bites"

I have many scars, are you saying that I should have never joined the military years ago and could have avoided sprains, cuts, burns, joint pain, a 4 inch shard of wood that was lodged through my one finger knuckle. I could have avoided being a runner years ago and avoided broken bones, sprains, etc.
Also about CBB and WC monitors, Ive been bit by a few of both. There is no such thing as tame CBB compared to WC monitor, if you kept any you should know this. To this day one of my monitors is WC, the others are all CBB. Also the first bite Ive taken in years was a flavi-argus, just like with bites Ive taken with albigs there is no amount of protection a glove could have offered, the teeth went through my thumb nail from the top, and through the thumbprint side, and crossed over around the bone. Ive had bones broken by albigs, 4ft long, Ive never been bite by my 6ft 4 incher.
If you work with or handle monitors it is bound to happen, you will get bitten sooner or later. Ive been keeping them for over 14 years. Ive had a water monitor bite my ankle as it ran past, luckily it was only 4ft long and I had jeans on, not much to worry about. Its funny reading the comment you posted about tame CBB monitors not giving you stitches, lol. THATS A GOOD ONE, LOL.
Of course by all means post opinion, but have some fact or experience to back it up.

[ Show Entire Thread ]