Dog Attack, Carroll County

[gummergif]

Many moons ago in high school I worked for a veterinarian, working with many different breeds of dog. Except for one vet's golden retriever the "pitbulls" (meaning dogs physically similar to what is called a pitbull) were the most docile. That's not to say they couldn't be aggressive, because any dog can suddenly become aggressive. Most of the animals were there for boarding so it wasn't just a one and done interaction, it could be daily interaction for however long the owner was out of town. The worst dog I dealt with was a mutt names Moses. That sucker was flat out mean.

Pitbulls are just the evil dog of the day. In the '70s and '80s the evil dogs were dobermans and German shepherds. It's all on how they are trained by the owner. Some dogs are inherently more territorial, some are more protective of their "family", others are easy going.

This. Everyone's reporting on statistics, (most of which are primarily based on news reports) but there's one other thing you have to take into account.

Ever notice how when you watch the news, every gun crime is committed with a Glock? Well, that's a huge part of the reason every dog attack is perpetrated by a pitt bull. The people reporting don't know any better, or know that "Pitt Bull" makes for better headlines than "Mixed/unknown Breed."

The problem is that most people can't recognize a pitt when it literally bites them in the ass. I've had people mistake a full blood AKC registered boxer, and a mastiff mix, for pitts. I had someone accuse a friend's black lab of being a pitt bull. I've seen a dog at the humane society labeled as a "Pitt Mix" when it was clearly a doberman, and another that was defiantly a newfoundland. They were just a little on the aggressive side, so BAM! They're pitts, now. It's much easier to stomach having to put down a dog when it's an "aggressive, dangerous bully breed."

There's a national agency that tests dogs for temperament and ranks them according to breed. You know what failed the temperament test more often than pitt bulls? Well, most breeds, if we're being honest, but collies and shelties ranked among the most agressive. I myself have seen a sheltie that had to be put down, because it wouldn't stop "herding" small children - chasing and nipping at them until they were herded together, and then biting at any that tried to leave the group. Of course, nobody's going after Lassie.

I don't currently own any pitt's although I do have a rescue that might be a mix. We think also lab and sharpei, judging by the mother.

Any dog can be dangerous with the wrong owner. Someone who doesn't know have the time or inclination to take care of it and train it properly.

Everyone on this board is willing to take a critical look at the statistics presented by the Brady Campaign and their ilk, and have a good laugh at the "sheeple" who simply accept them without question.

This, you're willing to accept at face value though? Willing to accept the news reports (and the statistics gathered from them), maybe a couple of first hand reports, and use that as an excuse to condemn them all?

Trust, but verify - in all matters, not just the fights you have an interest in.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

However, as an animal attack could occur anywhere at anytime I will chime in.

Looking at the ASPCA's official view on Pit Bulls https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls they seem to acknowledge all of the facts but appear to avoid wanting to discriminate against the animals. I can understand this from an organization that wants to help all animals, but let us look at some of their acknowledgements of these (and other) animals.

"While a dog’s genetics may predispose it to behave in certain ways, genetics do not exist in a vacuum."

True, genetics do NOT exist in a vacuum. However, just because a dog is trained well and taught well and socialized well does not exclude from it the basic genetic trait it was designed for!!

"Today’s pit bull is a descendant of the original English bull-baiting dog—a dog that was bred to bite and hold bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head. When baiting large animals was outlawed in the 1800s, people turned instead to fighting their dogs against each other. These larger, slower bull-baiting dogs were crossed with smaller, quicker terriers to produce a more agile and athletic dog for fighting other dogs."

This IS the foundation of the traits that were desired - biting, holding, fighting, aggression! This makes for a powerful, more dangerous and aggressive animal.

"The reality is that dogs of many breeds can be selectively bred or trained to develop aggressive traits."

And THIS ^^^ is exactly what happened in the case of the pit bull.

"Early positive experiences, most notably socialization, are considered key in preventing aggressive tendencies in dogs. Puppies that learn how to interact, play and communicate with both people and members of their own and other species are less likely to show aggressive behavior as adults."

Note the probability changers of "preventing" (not stopping) and "less likely" (not removing).

Let us look at real numbers, shall we. In a study of all dog attack fatalities from 2005 - 2014 there were 326 Americans KILLED by dog attacks. http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/10-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf

Here is the breakdown of numbers and statistics:

Breed.................. Number Killed................... Percentage

Pit Bull..................203....................................62.3%
Rottweiler.............38......................................11.7%
Mastiff/BMastiff....13......................................4%
German Shep......12......................................3.7%
Husky..................11.......................................3.4%
Mixed Breed........10......................................3.1%
American BDog...9........................................2.8%
Unknown.............8........................................2.5%
Combination........6 and less..........................6.5%

So, if we were to eliminate the top five (5) breeds you would have reduced deaths from dog attacks by 85.1%. In other words, there would be 277 out of 326 Americans alive today. So the next top (5) in dog attack fatalities is significantly lower than the first top (5). If the top five (5) dog attacking breeds had been removed there would still be 49 people dead, but that is a lot lower than 326.


I think these numbers need to be thought of before allowing emotion into the discussion. Of course many pit bulls will never attack anyone and will show nothing but love and kindness toward their owners, their owners families and others. They will provide much joy and happiness to their human families. But they WILL pose a significantly (62.3%) higher risk than other breeds.

Regards,

Doug

Here are a few quotes you left out from the ASPCA "Some pit bulls were selected and bred for their fighting ability. That means that they may be more likely than other breeds to fight with dogs. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be around other dogs or that they’re unpredictably aggressive. Other pit bulls were specifically bred for work and companionship. These dogs have long been popular family pets, noted for their gentleness, affection and loyalty. And even those pit bulls bred to fight other animals were not prone to aggressiveness toward people. Dogs used for fighting needed to be routinely handled by people; therefore aggression toward people was not tolerated." (Bold mine)

"And when it comes to influencing the behavior of an individual dog, factors such as housing conditions and the history of social interactions play pivotal roles in behavioral development. The factors that feed into the expression of behavior are so inextricably intertwined that it’s usually impossible to point to any one specific influence that accounts for a dog becoming aggressive. This is why there is such variation in behavior between individual dogs, even when they are of the same breed and bred for the same purpose. Because of the impact of experience, the pit bull specifically bred for generations to be aggressive may not fight with dogs and the Labrador retriever bred to be a service dog may be aggressive toward people."

And as for preventing not equaling stop, here is websters definition.
3: to keep from happening or existing <steps to prevent war>


4: to hold or keep back : hinder, stop —often used with from
Notice number 4, it specifically uses stop in the usage.

Also you state by removing the top 5 it would reduce the deaths by 85.1%, that is like saying if you remove the top 5 firearms/calibers used in homicides it would prevent x% of deaths. Don't you think the types of people that raise the "killer" pit bulls wouldn't just pick another large powerful breed such as let's say great danes, irish wolfhound, doberman (which were breed specifically for speed, strength, human aggression and fearlessness in the words of Doberman (the person that originated the breed) A dog that would look into the face of the devil himself and not back down, or any of the mastiff type breeds they didn't include in the top five. Or a whole host of others.

Also how did you come up with that they will pose a 62% higher risk than other dogs? Yes according to the statistics a anti-pit group they are the breed in that percent of cases of fatalities, it does not equal that they are that much of a higher risk. Using stats from that site is like an anti-gunner using ones from VPC,everytown,MDA,etc.

And for fun take the quizzes I linked below and post how well you did.

You have got to be kidding,.,., sure some bites are caused by provacation, but the simple act of working in your yard,delivering mail or packages, jogging, going for a walk, riding a bicycle, pulling a wagon with your kid, going out for Holloween and on and on. Is certainly is not provacation.

You won't see it as provocation, the dogs do. The dog sees it as you invading its territory or frequently in the case of jogging/bike riding as fleeing "prey".

This. Everyone's reporting on statistics, (most of which are primarily based on news reports) but there's one other thing you have to take into account.

Ever notice how when you watch the news, every gun crime is committed with a Glock? Well, that's a huge part of the reason every dog attack is perpetrated by a pitt bull. The people reporting don't know any better, or know that "Pitt Bull" makes for better headlines than "Mixed/unknown Breed."

The problem is that most people can't recognize a pitt when it literally bites them in the ass. I've had people mistake a full blood AKC registered boxer, and a mastiff mix, for pitts. I had someone accuse a friend's black lab of being a pitt bull. I've seen a dog at the pound labeled as a "Pitt Mix" when it was clearly a doberman, and other that was defiantly a newfoundland. Seriously, as far as most people (and news agencies) are concerned, anything with a semi-smushed face is a pitt. And most other dogs, if they can't think of the right breed name in that particular instant.

I agree. Here are a few fun websites to check out.
findpitbull_v4
Difficulty of Breed Identification | Stop BSL
Can you identify a pit bull? | Polldaddy.com
The TRUTH About Pit Bulls: Find the Pit Bull

 

[Libertarian01]

This. Everyone's reporting on statistics, (most of which are primarily based on news reports) but there's one other thing you have to take into account.

Ever notice how when you watch the news, every gun crime is committed with a Glock? Well, that's a huge part of the reason every dog attack is perpetrated by a pitt bull. The people reporting don't know any better, or know that "Pitt Bull" makes for better headlines than "Mixed/unknown Breed."

The problem is that most people can't recognize a pitt when it literally bites them in the ass. I've had people mistake a full blood AKC registered boxer, and a mastiff mix, for pitts. I had someone accuse a friend's black lab of being a pitt bull. I've seen a dog at the humane society labeled as a "Pitt Mix" when it was clearly a doberman, and another that was defiantly a newfoundland. They were just a little on the aggressive side, so BAM! They're pitts, now. It's much easier to stomach having to put down a dog when it's an "aggressive, dangerous bully breed."

There's a national agency that tests dogs for temperament and ranks them according to breed. You know what failed the temperament test more often than pitt bulls? Well, most breeds, if we're being honest, but collies and shelties ranked among the most agressive. I myself have seen a sheltie that had to be put down, because it wouldn't stop "herding" small children - chasing and nipping at them until they were herded together, and then biting at any that tried to leave the group. Of course, nobody's going after Lassie.

I don't currently own any pitt's although I do have a rescue that might be a mix. We think also lab and sharpei, judging by the mother.

Any dog can be dangerous with the wrong owner. Someone who doesn't know have the time or inclination to take care of it and train it properly.

Everyone on this board is willing to take a critical look at the statistics presented by the Brady Campaign and their ilk, and have a good laugh at the "sheeple" who simply accept them without question.

This, you're willing to accept at face value though? Willing to accept the news reports (and the statistics gathered from them), maybe a couple of first hand reports, and use that as an excuse to condemn them all?

Trust, but verify - in all matters, not just the fights you have an interest in.

I must be the first to concede that the numbers I originally posted may have been in error, so I find myself reevaluating the statistics.

Now, let us look at a report by the Center for Disease Control that spanned 20 years. Their report used numbers initially discovered in news reports but then verified by dog registration with the Humane Society of the United States registry database. This means it wasn't just ignorant reporters that were listened to, but actual registration information. It also accounts for known crossbreeds. They excluded death from rabies and other collateral causes that were initiated by the dog attack.

Even in this study over 60% of dog bite related fatalities (DBRFs) come from a combination of rottweilers and pit bulls. They did mention damage by great danes as well.

Here is a simple breakdown of where the attacks occurred:

24% - Unrestrained OFF the owners property.
58% - Unrestrained ON the owners property.
17% - Restrained ON the owners property.
<1% (1) - Restrained OFF the owners property.

From 1997 - 1998 70% of deaths were of children.

Numbers (including purebreeds and crossbreeds) from 1979 - 1998 (Total deaths = 440) [from the dog based approach]:

Pit Bulls = 118 (26.8%)
Rottweilers = 67 (15.23%)
Mixed breed = 47 (10.68%)
German shepherds = 41 (9.32%)
Huskies and Chow chows = 21 Each (4.8% ea)

So there are some differences, but YET AGAIN the pit bulls remain as much as the next two (2) identified breeds!

My numbers were calculated off of their charts in total, so reading some of their numbers that may have been looking at different factors but you can see for yourself http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf that certain breeds tend to have traits that make them more prone to attacks than others.

We must also base our thinking on statistics and not anecdotal stories generated by a few. Some folks may have had horrible experiences with a certain make of car. This doesn't necessarily make that car manufacturer bad, only that a few outliers deviated from the overal norm of a good car. Or perhaps indeed that manufacturer was subpar, but we don't know that without looking at the overall numbers gathered over long periods of time.

One interesting point that was made in the CDC report was that homeowners associations were limiting the heights of fences, and this may well be a contributing factor to the failure to contain a dog. Good for the CDC to at least mention a potentially mitigating factor that HOA's may not want to hear. They also go on to address certain Constitutional problems with local municipalities trying to do things that may violate the 14th ammendment. Again, good for them to mention our civil liberties.

They mention a study done in Denver that shows male dogs are 6.2 times more likely to bite than female dogs.

It is on page #4 that they say a combination of rottweilers and pit bulls from 1997 - 1998 were responsible for more than 60% of all DBRF's, but that over 30 breeds have been responsible for DBRF's. This then puts these two (2) breeds at the overwhelming top of the list for fatalities.

We also cannot look at lone experiences of veterinarians as their geographic location may well impact the breeds they see. For example, I'll bet that a veterinarian in Alaska will see many more huskies than shih tzu's. I once interviewed an animal control officer for my Libertarian television program. He was telling me the most common problem animal he saw in Fort Wayne and the issues with it. When I asked him about the difference with where he was before (a small town in southern or central Indiana) he admitted that he hadn't thought about it but the animal problem there was a different breed with a different set of issues. So even within a state geography and cultural preferences may well play a factor in what any one person sees.

Regards,

Doug

 

[17 squirrel]

Hummm Statistics.,.,.,

I will say this about statistics,
there's lies about statistics,
There's damn lies about statistics,
And then there is statistics.

I also have a difficult time believing that statistics would come from the News Agency's and not the Hospitals, Doctors Offices, Police / Sheriffs Departments, Animal Control and so on.

 

[Libertarian01]

...

I will try to address some of the points brought up here.

Regarding "Here are a few quotes you left out from the ASPCA "Some pit bulls were selected and bred for their fighting ability. That means that they may be more likely than other breeds to fight with dogs. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be around other dogs or that they’re unpredictably aggressive. Other pit bulls were specifically bred for work and companionship. These dogs have long been popular family pets, noted for their gentleness, affection and loyalty. And even those pit bulls bred to fight other animals were not prone to aggressiveness toward people. Dogs used for fighting needed to be routinely handled by people; therefore aggression toward people was not tolerated." (Bold mine)"

I did leave out some things because in reading the report I DID comment that the ASPCA is, in my words, "...they seem to acknowledge all of the facts but appear to avoid wanting to discriminate against the animals..." I also said that many pit bulls are good and loving members of families. What I am NOT ignoring is the overwhelming percentage of DBRF's caused by certain breeds of dogs.

Regarding "And when it comes to influencing the behavior of an individual dog, factors such as housing conditions and the history of social interactions play pivotal roles in behavioral development. The factors that feed into the expression of behavior are so inextricably intertwined that it’s usually impossible to point to any one specific influence that accounts for a dog becoming aggressive. This is why there is such variation in behavior between individual dogs, even when they are of the same breed and bred for the same purpose. Because of the impact of experience, the pit bull specifically bred for generations to be aggressive may not fight with dogs and the Labrador retriever bred to be a service dog may be aggressive toward people."

All of the above factors come into play. I have already conceded that. Again though, there is a strong resistance to accepting the reality that there have been traits that were desired and bred for in this particular breed. I do not accept that everything is so "inextricably intertwined" as suggested above. When I looked later at the CDC's numbers there are several dog breeds that top the list for DBRF's. Pit bulls are at or near the top.

Regarding "Also you state by removing the top 5 it would reduce the deaths by 85.1%, that is like saying if you remove the top 5 firearms/calibers used in homicides it would prevent x% of deaths. Don't you think the types of people that raise the "killer" pit bulls wouldn't just pick another large powerful breed such as let's say great danes, irish wolfhound, doberman (which were breed specifically for speed, strength, human aggression and fearlessness in the words of Doberman (the person that originated the breed) A dog that would look into the face of the devil himself and not back down, or any of the mastiff type breeds they didn't include in the top five. Or a whole host of others."

I stand by my position. It is because these top five (5) dog breeds are so damn big and powerful. Yes, other dogs are large and powerful, but they simply aren't popular in our culture. Sure, pit bulls could be replaced. I agree. But there are market factors involved. Some of the breeds you mentioned simply aren't as popular, thus there are less of them and prices may be higher. People may replace their dogs with other breeds, but the fact is that they haven't.

Regarding "Also how did you come up with that they will pose a 62% higher risk than other dogs? Yes according to the statistics a anti-pit group they are the breed in that percent of cases of fatalities, it does not equal that they are that much of a higher risk. Using stats from that site is like an anti-gunner using ones from VPC,everytown,MDA,etc."

I didn't mean to say they posed a 62% higher risk than other dogs. I was in error. The fact is that they were responsible for 62.3% of all DBRF's and I should have left it there. My bad.

Guns are dangerous. We should be allowed to have them. Some cars go damn fast or are olde and don't have seat belts. We should be allowed to have them. Motorcycle riders contribute 95% of all transplants given in the US (told to me by an insurance actuarial). People should be allowed to ride motorcycles. --- People should be allowed to own pit bulls. To keep looking for reasons to say they aren't more dangerous than other breeds is to stick our heads in the sand.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Libertarian01]

Hummm Statistics.,.,.,

I will say this about statistics,
there's lies about statistics,
There's damn lies about statistics,
And then there is statistics.

I also have a difficult time believing that statistics would come from the News Agency's and not the Hospitals, Doctors Offices, Police / Sheriffs Departments, Animal Control and so on.

I won't disagree that statistics can be manipulated, which is why you have to look at the methodology of calculation.

However, there is NO BETTER way to study a large issue. If you are looking at buying a reliable car you can go with what yer buddy says or the guy at the shop or any host of sources of information for things, but all of that personal experience is far better if you were to interview 1,000 mechanics about problem cars than just one or two people. The accumulation of their actual numbers becomes a statistic that is a much better determinant of the truth than what any one or two people have to say.

Regards,

Doug

 

[gummergif]

I

Now, let us look at a report by the Center for Disease Control that spanned 20 years. Their report used numbers initially discovered in news reports but then verified by dog registration with the Humane Society of the United States registry database. This means it wasn't just ignorant reporters that were listened to, but actual registration information.

Unfortunatley, you can't always trust the humane society's say on breed, either. How much do you know about the inner working of those places? Anything in there that wasn't brought in by an owner who can tell them breed is either a lab, a pitt, or (if it's under a certain weight) a chihuahua mix. If it's aggressive, it's labeled as a Pitt, and that's where those statistics come from. Overworked, underpaid volunteers who don't have the time or know-how to properly breed a dog. If it's aggressive, they slap "Pitt" on it, because it's easier to justify putting a dog down if it's an agressive bully breed. That's just human nature.

When my wife was in vet-tech school, one of their activities was going through humane society records and correcting the breeds they'd haphazardly slapped on dogs. The word she used was "appalling." Anything short-haired/aggressive? It's a Pit Bull.

So in actuality, when you see "Pitt Bull" in those reports, it's not really referring to the specific breed - you're seeing reported incidents for any short-haired, aggressive dog.

 

[Libertarian01]

Unfortunatley, you can't always trust the humane society's say on breed, either. How much do you know about the inner working of those places? Anything in there that wasn't brought in by an owner who can tell them breed is either a lab, a pitt, or (if it's under a certain weight) a chihuahua mix. If it's aggressive, it's labeled as a Pitt, and that's where those statistics come from. Overworked, underpaid volunteers who don't have the time or know-how to properly breed a dog. If it's aggressive, they slap "Pitt" on it, because it's easier to justify putting a dog down if it's an agressive bully breed. That's just human nature.

When my wife was in vet-tech school, one of their activities was going through humane society records and correcting the breeds they'd haphazardly slapped on dogs. The word she used was "appalling." Anything short-haired/aggressive? It's a Pit Bull.

So in actuality, when you see "Pitt Bull" in those reports, it's not really referring to the specific breed - you're seeing reported incidents for any short-haired, aggressive dog.

It's the best we've got and it's better than nothing! We have to use some source and we can all find reasons to dispute anything.

So YOU come up with a better source for dog bite attacks. YOU tell ME what source the CDC should use instead, hmm? The Humane Society is, I'd wager, a FAR site better than Bob the Reporter. At least the dog breeds were verified somewhere.

And just because the Humane Society may have made errors, I am certain that with your wife's help their records are vastly improved. With her help and that of others perhaps they aren't as far off as you'd guess. Either way, they appear to be the best we have to go on.

OR we can just stick our heads in the sand, throw up our arms, and say, "Golly! We don't know anything about anything when it comes to dog breeds. We'd might as well just ignore the issue entirely and not even try."

Really...?

Regards,

Doug

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I must be the first to concede that the numbers I originally posted may have been in error, so I find myself reevaluating the statistics.

Now, let us look at a report by the Center for Disease Control that spanned 20 years. Their report used numbers initially discovered in news reports but then verified by dog registration with the Humane Society of the United States registry database. This means it wasn't just ignorant reporters that were listened to, but actual registration information. It also accounts for known crossbreeds. They excluded death from rabies and other collateral causes that were initiated by the dog attack.

Even in this study over 60% of dog bite related fatalities (DBRFs) come from a combination of rottweilers and pit bulls. They did mention damage by great danes as well.

Here is a simple breakdown of where the attacks occurred:

24% - Unrestrained OFF the owners property.
58% - Unrestrained ON the owners property.
17% - Restrained ON the owners property.
<1% (1) - Restrained OFF the owners property.

Regards,

Doug

A couple of things the Humane society doesn't register dogs, the groups that do would be the AKC,UKC,NKC,etc. Also the linked article did not say it was verified by the Humane society or that the dogs were registered with them. Here is what it does say "We collected data from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and media accounts related to dog bite attacks and fatalities, using methods from previous studies. The HSUS maintains a registry of human DBRF, including date of death, age and sex of decedent, city and state of attack, number and breeds of dogs involved, and circumstances relating to the attack." Also most of the "pit bulls" are unable to be registered by any of the groups. For instance the AKC will only register pure-breed American stratfordshire terriers. Which it's required to prove the dogs lineage generally by having it's ancestors registered with them or another registry that they will accept.

Here is another quote from your link, please pay attention to the part I bolded "When crossbred dogs were involved in a fatality, each suspected breed in the dog’s lineage was counted once for that episode" Not quite as you say "known crossbreeds" is it? Did you try any of the quizzes I linked above? How did you do?

I will try to address some of the points brought up here.

Regarding "Here are a few quotes you left out from the ASPCA "Some pit bulls were selected and bred for their fighting ability. That means that they may be more likely than other breeds to fight with dogs. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be around other dogs or that they’re unpredictably aggressive. Other pit bulls were specifically bred for work and companionship. These dogs have long been popular family pets, noted for their gentleness, affection and loyalty. And even those pit bulls bred to fight other animals were not prone to aggressiveness toward people. Dogs used for fighting needed to be routinely handled by people; therefore aggression toward people was not tolerated." (Bold mine)"

I did leave out some things because in reading the report I DID comment that the ASPCA is, in my words, "...they seem to acknowledge all of the facts but appear to avoid wanting to discriminate against the animals..." I also said that many pit bulls are good and loving members of families. What I am NOT ignoring is the overwhelming percentage of DBRF's caused by certain breeds of dogs.

Regarding "And when it comes to influencing the behavior of an individual dog, factors such as housing conditions and the history of social interactions play pivotal roles in behavioral development. The factors that feed into the expression of behavior are so inextricably intertwined that it’s usually impossible to point to any one specific influence that accounts for a dog becoming aggressive. This is why there is such variation in behavior between individual dogs, even when they are of the same breed and bred for the same purpose. Because of the impact of experience, the pit bull specifically bred for generations to be aggressive may not fight with dogs and the Labrador retriever bred to be a service dog may be aggressive toward people."

All of the above factors come into play. I have already conceded that. Again though, there is a strong resistance to accepting the reality that there have been traits that were desired and bred for in this particular breed. I do not accept that everything is so "inextricably intertwined" as suggested above. When I looked later at the CDC's numbers there are several dog breeds that top the list for DBRF's. Pit bulls are at or near the top.

Regarding "Also you state by removing the top 5 it would reduce the deaths by 85.1%, that is like saying if you remove the top 5 firearms/calibers used in homicides it would prevent x% of deaths. Don't you think the types of people that raise the "killer" pit bulls wouldn't just pick another large powerful breed such as let's say great danes, irish wolfhound, doberman (which were breed specifically for speed, strength, human aggression and fearlessness in the words of Doberman (the person that originated the breed) A dog that would look into the face of the devil himself and not back down, or any of the mastiff type breeds they didn't include in the top five. Or a whole host of others."

I stand by my position. It is because these top five (5) dog breeds are so damn big and powerful. Yes, other dogs are large and powerful, but they simply aren't popular in our culture. Sure, pit bulls could be replaced. I agree. But there are market factors involved. Some of the breeds you mentioned simply aren't as popular, thus there are less of them and prices may be higher. People may replace their dogs with other breeds, but the fact is that they haven't.

Regarding "Also how did you come up with that they will pose a 62% higher risk than other dogs? Yes according to the statistics a anti-pit group they are the breed in that percent of cases of fatalities, it does not equal that they are that much of a higher risk. Using stats from that site is like an anti-gunner using ones from VPC,everytown,MDA,etc."

Regards,

Doug

You say "...they seem to acknowledge all of the facts but appear to avoid wanting to discriminate against the animals..." about the ASPCA, but take for a fact everything from a anti-pit bull site. Again it is the same as taking VPC/MDA/etc as fact.

"Again though, there is a strong resistance to accepting the reality that there have been traits that were desired and bred for in this particular breed." You mean traits like non-human aggression? Such as was mentioned in your link? As was stated fighting dogs had a lot of human interaction, even while fighting. It was (is?) common for the owner/handler of the other dog to handle and bath the opponent before the fight because it wasn't unknown to coat a dog prior to a fight with drugs or noxious chemicals to deter the other dog from biting or in the case of drugs to slow them down.

Your right they haven't replaced pits yet, they are still currently "hot" or the "flavor of the month" if you will. Same as GSDs/Rotts/Dobermans/Chows/Collies/etc have been. You do know at one point that Collies were the number 1 bitingest dog in the country right? And were not talking little nips that might need a bandaid, were talking hospital visit bites. Why? Because they were popular everyone wanted lassie. So the same thing happened with them as happened with pits and the other dogs I mentioned. People bought them and bred the hell out of them to sell without regards to lineage. Enough backyard breeders got into it the price dropped. Same would happen with whatever the next hottness would be if you got rid of the five "worst" dogs. Before Rotts became popular a person could expect to pay $1k or more, now while you can still find them at that price I've seen them as low as $100-150. Same with Pits currently, or GSDs.

Unfortunatley, you can't always trust the humane society's say on breed, either. How much do you know about the inner working of those places? Anything in there that wasn't brought in by an owner who can tell them breed is either a lab, a pitt, or (if it's under a certain weight) a chihuahua mix. If it's aggressive, it's labeled as a Pitt, and that's where those statistics come from. Overworked, underpaid volunteers who don't have the time or know-how to properly breed a dog. If it's aggressive, they slap "Pitt" on it, because it's easier to justify putting a dog down if it's an agressive bully breed. That's just human nature.

When my wife was in vet-tech school, one of their activities was going through humane society records and correcting the breeds they'd haphazardly slapped on dogs. The word she used was "appalling." Anything short-haired/aggressive? It's a Pit Bull.

So in actuality, when you see "Pitt Bull" in those reports, it's not really referring to the specific breed - you're seeing reported incidents for any short-haired, aggressive dog.

Not necessarily aggressive, any short haired, muscular, nondescript dog is labeled as a pit/pit mix. If it can't be immediately identified as a certain breed it's a "pit", heck even if it is identifiable it's a pit. I've seen what looked like a pure bred boxer labeled a "pit".

 

[gummergif]

It's the best we've got and it's better than nothing! We have to use some source and we can all find reasons to dispute anything.

So YOU come up with a better source for dog bite attacks. YOU tell ME what source the CDC should use instead, hmm? The Humane Society is, I'd wager, a FAR site better than Bob the Reporter. At least the dog breeds were verified somewhere.

(...)

OR we can just stick our heads in the sand, throw up our arms, and say, "Golly! We don't know anything about anything when it comes to dog breeds. We'd might as well just ignore the issue entirely and not even try."

Well, in the absence of any reliable data...

Yeah. We admit that we don't know for sure. Same way we admit we aren't 100% sure why gravity exists. We admit that taking the very high probability of incorrect data into account, it could very easily turn out that no particular breed is more likely to attack people than any other.

We admit that it takes more than a five minute internet search to be an expert on anything. We acknowledge that information, existing in a vacuum without the experience to back it up, can be more dangerous than simple ignorance.

Maybe we stop playing the blame game against a species that has been bred for thousands of years to be our perfect companion animals, and just admit that most of the time, some dogs attack people for the same reason some people rob convinience stores - their upbringing.

 

[nakinate]

New Policy: Stab anything that approaches closer than one meter.

Is that why you stab yourself so often?

 

[churchmouse]

Just checking in.




They are all just dogs boys, all of them.

 

[nakinate]

You know what breed I trust the least? As far as temperament goes it is a chow. Those will try to kill you just for looking at them.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

They are all just dogs boys, all of them.

Pretty much.

 

[17 squirrel]

You know what breed I trust the least? As far as temperament goes it is a chow. Those will try to kill you just for looking at them.

The last one that bit me was a Chow, one of us is alive.

 

[Libertarian01]

So when I present numbers, not opinions, these sources are attacked, questioned and undermined.

Ok, fine.

Perhaps my sources are wrong. Perhaps the numbers I have seen and read about are out of line. I will concede this - IF proven wrong.

Because what I HAVE NOT seen is a single, verifiable source of numbers from the deniers side. Everyone wants to be an apologist for pit bulls making all sorts of excuses about how they aren't what they appear to be.

So I now challenge all who say pit bulls aren't that dangerous - PROVE IT! Instead of posting opinions, innuendo and anecdotal stories show me ANYTHING from ANYWHERE that proves, statistically that pit bulls, rottweilers, etc are NOT the dangerous dogs the sources that I have so far found to be in such grievous error.

If my sources are so out of line then surely there must be verifiable data out there that says so, right...?

I await your sources of verifiable data with baited breath.

Regards,

Doug

 

[churchmouse]

So when I present numbers, not opinions, these sources are attacked, questioned and undermined.

Ok, fine.

Perhaps my sources are wrong. Perhaps the numbers I have seen and read about are out of line. I will concede this - IF proven wrong.

Because what I HAVE NOT seen is a single, verifiable source of numbers from the deniers side. Everyone wants to be an apologist for pit bulls making all sorts of excuses about how they aren't what they appear to be.

So I now challenge all who say pit bulls aren't that dangerous - PROVE IT! Instead of posting opinions, innuendo and anecdotal stories show me ANYTHING from ANYWHERE that proves, statistically that pit bulls, rottweilers, etc are NOT the dangerous dogs the sources that I have so far found to be in such grievous error.

If my sources are so out of line then surely there must be verifiable data out there that says so, right...?

I await your sources of verifiable data with baited breath.

Regards,

Doug

He does make a good point.

Lets see some.....

 

[nakinate]

The last one that bit me was a Chow, one of us is alive.

A family friend of mine had a chow years ago. Only the father in the family could even look it in the eyes. More than once that dog tried to kill me. It eventually bit someone and had to be put down.

 

[17 squirrel]

A family friend of mine had a chow years ago. Only the father in the family could even look it in the eyes. More than once that dog tried to kill me. It eventually bit someone and had to be put down.

That dog smelled my hands when we met and as I walked up the front steps it circled around behind me and bit me around the knee..

 

[nakinate]

That dog smelled my hands when we met and as I walked up the front steps it circled around behind me and bit me around the knee..

Did you have to put it down then or later?