[Deleted]

If you've read the book "How to Lie With Statistics" you'd probably get why I don't buy it. MOST AC people and JQP couldn't tell a pit bull from Lab chow mix at 2 paces. When we begin to rely on the public's "dog breed knowledge' is when we learn how little the public knows.
 
Anything brindle=Pit
Anything with a short coat=pit
Anything black and tan=Rott
Anything with a black mask=GSD
Anything with a curled tail=Husky or Akita
 
So...until these dog are genetically tested as such...the breed classifications are pretty highly flawed by default.
 
And to switch to moderator mode for a moment...
I see this is your first post here? One would hope you did not join solely to discuss this one topic and stir a very big pot? Tell us about yourself...your dogs..and other things that interest you...aside from fatal dog attacks. We'd love to hear it.
 

According to many, many people we encounter on our walks, this guy over there in my avatar is a natural-eared doberman puppy (oooo scary gaurd dog!).

He's a black and tan coonhound.

You can take [linkhttp://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html]this quiz[/link] to see if you can pick the pit bull out of a dog line up.

ORIGINAL: iwonder

This topic was posted in the "How Are We Doing” area.  It didn't seem appropriate to reply there, but it did seem the post was deserving of a reply. 

A member named "badrap" posted a message by this title saying:

ORIGINAL: badrap

I'm just wondering how much longer we plan to ignore posters who post flagrant lies and state them as fact, such as, "this is what i was trying to tell you pit bulls kill kids....

this is really, really offensive to me. yes, i can block the user, but that doesn't stop him from posting this crap and possibly influencing the opinions of new users and lurkers.

there are a few of us who work as hard as we can to portray our dogs in a positive light, and i find this type of posting needs to be addressed.

I don't think characterizing the statement "pit bulls kill kids” as a 'flagrant lie' demonstrates a reasonable or balanced attitude on the subject.  You suggest the poster present "facts.”   Here are some facts that 20 minutes of net research turned up:

The table below shows the number of fatal dog attacks from 1979 to 1998 by breed.  In parenthesis is the percentage of attacks by breed.   

Pit bull              76 (32%)
Rottweiler          44 (18.5%)
German sheph   27 (11.4%)
Husky type        21 (8.8%)
Malamute          15 (6.3%)
All other breeds 55 (23%)

80% of fatal dog attacks are children 12 or younger

Pit bulls represent 6% of the dogs in US, yet in the years 1965 through 2001 pit bulls accounted for 21% of fatal dog attacks in the US  — this is 3-4 times their fair share of fatalities

The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend

In summary, children are by far the most vulnerable to dog attacks, and pit bulls kill 3-4 times their proportional share of the children killed by dogs.

It may be a little staccato to say "pit bulls kill kids,” but it's not a "flagrant lie.”  Nor is it only personal opinion.   Thus, pointing it out shouldn't be the basis for censorship.

I've said this before and I'll say it again.  And by the way...this is a fact!
In England the Staffshire Terrier, very closely related to the pit bul, is called a "nanny dog."  Funny how we call them pits over here.  Quite a difference of opinion.http://www.answers.com/topic/staffordshire-bull-terrier

  "Terrier breeds are generally bold, inquisitive and fearless. The Staffie is renowned for its reliability as a nanny dog. They are extremely loving dogs, being loyal and devoted to man, with special emphasis on their reliability with children. The breed thrives in the family environment, being a suitably compact size for close family living. For these reasons, they are sometimes referred to as "nanny dogs"."

Further, pits have caught the attention of people who are irresponsible and simply want a tough looking dog.  And the train it to be tough, like you can with any dog of any breed and wha-la you've got a dangerous dog.  That doesn't mean that a lab or a boxer or a poodle couldn't be trained to be just as dangerous.  It just so happens that "gangsters" and "macho a-holes" do not prefer the looks of labs and poodles although sometimes with boxers. 

Unfortunately, statistics vary based on the source you get them from. Statistics are not neccessarily cold hard facts in every case. There is SO much conflicting information when it comes to dog attacks- and much of the info out there is innaccurate.
 
For example, here are the temperament test statistics from the ATTS:




AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER
Tested: 542
Passed: 456
Failed: 86
Percent: 84.1%


AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER
521
437
84
83.9%



GOLDEN RETRIEVER
                                               687
                  576
           111
                 83.8%
 




CHIHUAHUA
                                                                  35
                   25               
10
                71.4%



SHETLAND SHEEPDOG
                                          471
                 317
             154
                67.3%
 
 
 
Pits and Amstaffs both scored higher than Golden Retreivers, Chihuahuas, and Shelties- three common breeds WITHOUT "vicious dog" stigmas. If that's the case, then why IS there such a stigma against pit bulls? Because the media has painted an image of them as vicious killers. 99% of the time, the news will NOT report a dog attack that WASN'T committed by a pit bull- because it doesn't make for "good news." People want to hear about vicious pit bulls- they DON'T want to hear about the neighbor's lab killing a baby. People are comfortable with the idea of vicious pit bulls- not with the idea of vicious poodles. The media caters to people's wishes to not leave their comfort zone. The reports of dog attacks on the news are unbelievably, and unapologetically, biased.
 
As for bite statistics? I question them- because dogs who are NOT pit bulls are often misidentified as being pit bulls. This link here: [linkhttp://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html]http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html[/link] shows many breeds that are commonly misidentified as pit bulls- see if you can find the pit bull in that group of photos. Find it difficult? Unfortunately, the local animal control officer probably can't do it either.
 
The truth is, MANY dog attacks are falsely reported as pit bull attacks. Someone sees a short hair medium sized dog attack a kid? Usually, they're going to say "Yep, it was a pit bull." The average person, and the average ACO, is NOT qualified to identify dog breeds- and unfortunately, that's where those statistics come from.

Wow...it posted those numbers all screwey and I get an error whenever I try to edit my post. [&:] Oh well, you get the idea anyway.

think someone needs to read the entire page for his stats
 
[email=kphillips@dogbitelaw.com][/email]There have been many news reports about deaths caused by dogs in the USA. The attention given to the homicides has put the spotlight on pit bulls and Rottweilers. There is a very good reason for focusing on these two breeds: in recent years, they have usually been the number one and number two canine killers of humans. (See below. It therefore is correct to single out those two breeds when talking about canine homicides, because those two breeds lately have caused half or more of the deaths -- a disgraceful statistic whether it is regarded as the fault of the dogs, their breeders, their owners, or all three.
However, the focus on death cases may leave the public with the false impression that pit bulls and Rottweilers are responsible for the dog bite epidemic. It is a much broader problem than that, involving all dogs and all dog owners. While pit bulls and Rottweilers inflict a disproportionate number of serious and even fatal injuries, the dog bite epidemic involves many different breeds, and results from many different causes. A clear distinction needs to be made between canine homicides (i.e., incidents in which dogs kill people) and the dog bite epidemic.
Canine inflicted homicides have remained at the same general level (15 to 20 annually), which cannot be said for the number of dog bites, which is too high (5 million annually) and appears to be growing higher (see statistics, above). Considering the fact that there are 65 million dogs in the United States (see above), the homicide problem is minuscule. This is not to denigrate it, but to point out that eliminating it entirely would save only 15 to 20 people, out of the 5 million who are bitten by dogs.
The confusion caused by discussing the homicides and the dog bites in the same breath has its most important ramification in the area of prevention. Some are advocating the banning of pit bulls, Rottweilers and possibly other breeds, for reasons that range from their alleged dangerousness to the fact that they are very often treated inhumanely. Those who hear about the homicides often support breed bans. However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.)
As a practical matter, the current tide of public outrage should be focused on the enactment of measures that would deal effectively with the entire epidemic, not merely the breeds that kill. It would be unwise to enact all kinds of controls on one or two breeds, not necessarily because it would be unfair, but because it would produce narrow and therefore unsatisfactory results. The war against crime isn't a war against just the bank robbers, but against all criminals; the war against drugs isn't a war against just the Colombian drug lords, but all drug lords. For the same reason, the dog bite epidemic must not focus on just one or two breeds and stop there. The war on this epidemic must be comprehensive.
To learn more, read Attorney Kenneth Phillips' 10-point plan for Prevention
 
also he missed the wolf-hybrids

Speaking of the media and BSL, a year or so ago a couple of kids were attacked and bitten by a pair of Pit Bulls in a town outside of Chicago. Everyone was calling for a ban on Pit Bulls and were making a huge stink about how these ticking timebombs were totally unsafe because Lord knows one day they'll snap and go on a child eating rampage. So the local AC was looking into it and decided that it wasn't worth banning Pit Bulls in that area. Why? Because the most dog bites/attacks in that area came from Labrador Retrievers.
 
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are literally MILLIONS of Pit Bulls in this country. If they're such terrible mostrocities that should not be trusted then why aren't there more Pit Bull maulings/attacks then? Is it because in reality, the majority aren't out to eat children and that maulings/attacks are in the small minority that are usually due to irresponsible ownership? Then again, it's way easier to ban a breed than it is to ban stupid irresponsible people.

Unfortunately, statistics vary based on the source you get them from. Statistics are not neccessarily cold hard facts in every case. There is SO much conflicting information when it comes to dog attacks- and much of the info out there is innaccurate.

So true.

hhhmm - no new post by Iwonder - looks like a thread meant to stir - maybe this should be closed?   - maybe even looking for a place where the thoughts are more to their "mindset"

[Deleted by Admins]

iwonder...be careful on the internet. It's difficult to convey emotion simply through typed words, and some will take your tone to be condescending and rude. Also, don't be sexist. You have no idea weather badrap is male or female.

Others have responded to your "facts" with other information, and you have no response to them.

ORIGINAL: iwonder


In summary, children are by far the most vulnerable to dog attacks, and pit bulls kill 3-4 times their proportional share of the children killed by dogs.

Actually, if you read "Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics,"  you will note that the author notes that pit bulls have been involved in a proportionally *lower* amount of child fatalities when compared to other breeds

Doesn't it seem like I'd be bantering with other posters if I were simply a troll trying to stir up squabbling. Regarding mindsets, the reason for my post was the obvious bias of the poster I quoted -- in his refusal to acknowledge widely known facts and his desire to hide them from view with censorship in hopes they would go away. The replies to my post seem to indicate where the mindset rests.

First off Badrap is a her, second the point you are missing is the "facts" presented are misleading.  The dogs that are commonly listed as those with most fatal attacks are the largest and most capable of those attacks.  Although chihuahua bites are very comomon, I don't even see them because they are rarely bad enough for me to sew up.  Now I report every bite I see, but again, I only see bites by "big" dogs because bites from little dogs are very infrequently bad enought to require treatment.  Are pitbulls dangerous, of course, any large animal with teeth is. 
Should they be treated with respect, of course.  Should they be banned because they are capable of killing someone when improperly raised or confined ?  I personally don't think so as the sister of a wonderful pit mix!!  I think your bias is just as obvious as badrap's.
 
I also find this a very bizarre topic to choose for a first post.  If you don't want people to think you are troll, change your tone and don't come in so hot to a board you are new to, just my [sm=2cents.gif]

iwonder, I can't help but notice that you've failed to offer a response to the information presented to you.