What Should Be Done About Pit Bull Owners?

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: chewbecca

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: Dog_ma



If pitbulls were really such terrible threats, there would be so many more attacks than there are. How big is the pitbull population? How well are most of these dogs socialized? By any count there is a huge number of unsocialized untrained pits out there. The streets should be running with blood.

Insurance companies, home owner associations and boarding kennels would disagree with you. More and more of them are prohibiting Pit Bulls for clients and residents, and they claim that statistics are used to determine this.

ha! And I believe their statistics just like I believe EVERY STORY that hits the media about pit bulls.
Honestly, Bob (and I agree with a lot of what you say most of the time), where do you think these insurance companies and different places get their statistics??
Probably the easiest source possible-THE MEDIA.


ooops, sorry, I guess I'm not done with this thread.

Frankly. I doubt very much if major National insuance companies are going to base their business practices on what they read in the daily News. Obviously they have claims and mountains of statistics that they share with other insurance companies and calculate a risk factor and deem it unacceptable for that breed. That is also a major reason why Pit Bulls are not very adoptable in shelters, because the shelter doesn't want to take the risk of having someone injured by a dog they adopted out.

First of all, media is what gets "news" out there. That's how people hear about things. That's what starts "investigations" into certain subjects. You'd be amazed what fear and hype can be blown up and made into "facts" by those who have the "power" to do so.

And second of all, that is NOT why pit bulls are unadoptable in shelters. IF a shelter doesn't take a pit bull then it's because they don't have room OR they know they'll have a hard time adopting it out because of public perception (mainly created by the media). NOT BECAUSE they don't want to adopt out a dog that will injure someone. Seriously. If there was a shelter that didn't take pit bulls for THAT reason, why, I wouldn't consider them a very good shelter or one that I would adopt from. Because they ARE UNEDUCATED about the breed(s). And if they are THAT uneducated about pit bulls then I can ONLY imagine what other breeds they are uneducated about.

Now I am the LAST person to deny my breed of choice's history. I am the LAST person to think that hiding their heritage or history to pretty them up so that the public will see the beautiful, harmless dog that they are, is the proper way to educate the public about pit bull ownership. I don't think owning a pit bull is for everyone. But neither is owning any other breed for everyone. What about the owners that adopt a greyhound and allow it off leash? What about all the other owners of "difficult" breeds that make mistakes? Or are irresponsible owners?

If you owned a pit bull, Bob, you'd be singing the same tune as I am and you'd think it was just as wrong that insurance companies make it more difficult for pit bull owners. But you don't, so it's easy for you to hide behind these "totally full of facts statistics" that insurance companies just must be going off of, and say these untrue things.

What should be done with Pit Bull owners? Nothing more than I'd expect from ALL dog owners regardless of breed. People need to take dog ownership more seriously but sadly, people take more time and do more research to pick out a toaster than they do a dog.
 
I do NOT support BSL. BSL is the band-aid solution because it's much easier to ban dogs than it is to ban stupid, irresponsible people. These types of people already break the laws that are written such as the leash law, licensing and all that jazz. Do you really think they give 2 flips about BSL?
 
A few years ago, I posted this picture on a message board where people were losing their marbles over Pit Bulls...
 

 
I was told repeatedly that I should kill this dog because one day he was going to snap, rip my throat out, eat my child, jump out of the picture window and go on a rampage and terrorize the neighborhood. Yep, my 10lb Boston Terrier. If people can't differentiate between a Pit Bull and a Boston Terrier there's no way in Hell I'd support BSL because if they'll go after one breed, what's to stop them from coming after my breed?
 
Another reason I don't support BSL is that it wouldn't do any good for those neighborhoods where Pit Bulls aren't popular. In my old neighborhood, the biggest problems I had were from the neighbors aggressive Cocker Spaniel that they loved to let roam off leash, the dog aggressive Siberian Husky who constantly jumped the fence and the fruit loop who would constantly walk his Border Collie who had no sort of recall at the park but would scream at me to "watch my dogs" even though my dogs were on leash and under my control.
 
In my new neighborhood, I've seen very few off leash dogs. I've seen a wide variety of dogs around here ranging from the Poodles across the street, the Sheltie who lives behind me and during walks I've met a Collie, Labradoodle, Doberman, Rottweiler, Bull Terrier, Golden Retrievers, Saint Bernard and a few Pit Bulls. All of these dogs were leashed and well behaved. If BSL were enacted, at least 5 of these breeds would be at risk yet they've posed no harm and were under the control of responsible owners. I would hate for these dogs to lose their lives because they *might* attack someone and because of the irresponsible actions of others.

I'm sorry, Bob, but shelters like the one with the pit mix that you're volunteering for, surely aren't helping the breed any.
For the bad rap that pit bulls get, possibly putting up for adoption a pit bull/pit bull mix with ANY human aggression is 1.) not doing service to the dog 2.) not doing a service to the rep. of pit bulls. and 3.) taking up valuable space that could be open for a stable temperamented pit bull that DOES meet the temperament standard of a true american pit bull terrier.


Human aggression IS NOT a trait that is within the APBT breed standard for temperament. These dogs should be one of the MOST human loving breeds out there in existence. And if you meet one that is not, it has either been abused, terribly, to the point of hating humans (which takes a LOT because it is INBORN for pit bulls to ADORE humans, or it was a fluke of a dog as far as the true temperament is concerned.

I honestly think the most humane thing for that dog would be to be euthanized. Think of the danger that shelter could be imposing on someone going to adopt that dog??? No, you may adopt it to people who can handle it, but what if they happen upon a young black child and that dog gets away? What happens to that child?? THEN what happens to the dog? THEN what happens to the pit bull reputation when it's reported in the papers and on television???

Now is that responsible??
That's setting the dog and the breed up for failure, imo, and possibly endangering an innocent child.
Human aggression is NOT tolerated in pit bulls. EVER, as far as I'm concerned and as far as MOST APBT owners are concerned.

Bob, SHOW me these statistics the insurance companies are using to determine how "unsafe" a pibble is. I've searched and have yet to find them. What I find supports otherwise.

Wow.  There are shelters who will adopt out known human aggressive dogs?  Now THAT is a problem.  And a scary one.  In my area, no-kill shelters will put down a blatantly dangerous dog.  No-kill doesn't mean never-kill when it comes to matters of health and safety. 

The first number is total number of dogs tested, second number is dogs passed, third number is dogs failed, and the percentage is of those that passed.
These are the current statistics from 12/06.
 

AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER
542
456
86
84.1%

 

AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD
571
461
110
80.7%

 

  



ROTTWEILER
4744
3,923
821
82.7%

 

  



GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG
2,833
2,361
472
83.3%

 

GREAT DANE
256
202
54
78.9%

 

SHETLAND SHEEPDOG
471
317
154
67.3%

 

  



COCKER SPANIEL
219
179
40
81.7%

 

  



DOBERMAN PINSCHER
1452
1,115
337
76.8%

 
These are just some other common breeds. This information came from [linkhttp://www.atts.org]ATTS[/link] and they have no motive to make ABPTS appear better than they are.

It *is* a huge problem that shelters are adopting out HA dogs. There is no room in the breed and their future for dogs so far out of breed standard that they're dangerous.

I stayed out of this as long as I could, but I did want to address the insurance issue.

My opinion is that there are no reliable statistics about dogs bites, because the records the police and hospitals have, and that in turn insurance groups have, are only as good as the person who identified the dog.

As we all know, dogs are mis-identified all the time - in shelters, by the media, by average citizens.

Back to the topic: We need strict care laws and the financial support to have large AC groups in every county to uphold those laws.

[linkhttp://dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf]http://dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf[/link]
 
Insurance companies are in the business of accurately determining risk. They are experts at gathering acurate statistics from a variaty of sources.  That is how they stay in busuness.
 
Every policy they don't sell cost them money. Every claim they pay costs them money.  Taking the time to evaluate individual owners costs them money.
 
Insuring owners with pit bulls are much more likely to result in them paying a claim that insuring owners with Golden Retireivers.  They don't care if it's the owners fault, bad training, irresonsable breeding, intacts dogs, etc.  They only care about thier claim historys.
 

ORIGINAL: UndefinedMelody

Bob, SHOW me these statistics the insurance companies are using to determine how "unsafe" a pibble is. I've searched and have yet to find them. What I find supports otherwise.

Why don't you call the insurance  companies yourself and ask them why they either charge more for covering a Pit Bull on a homeowners policy, or won't cover it at all.  They don't have to convince me why they are charging more, but apparently you disagree. 

ORIGINAL: tcasby

[linkhttp://dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf]http://dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf[/link]

Insurance companies are in the business of accurately determining risk. They are experts at gathering acurate statistics from a variaty of sources.  That is how they stay in busuness.

Every policy they don't sell cost them money. Every claim they pay costs them money.  Taking the time to evaluate individual owners costs them money.

Insuring owners with pit bulls are much more likely to result in them paying a claim that insuring owners with Golden Retireivers.  They don't care if it's the owners fault, bad training, irresonsable breeding, intacts dogs, etc.  They only care about thier claim historys.

Exactly what I was saying.  People can choose to ignore the reality of this situation and try to blame everything under the sun, newspapers, TV, radio shows, etc... etc...  but all the insurance company looks at is the number of claims they have to pay out and the risk factor in selling the policy. One could argue that teen drivers cost more to insure because the "media"  inflates the danger of the teen driver, but that isn't true either. 

The insurance company that covers the house Thor lives in (avatar) has no problem with his breed and do not charge more for the homeowners insurance, and they are banned in almost ever city around us. And they would have to convince me where they get their statistics from, because, in my experience, its more often a more common "harmless" breed causing trouble, because the owners depend on the breeds good reputation to excuse the behavior of the dog they didn't train.

Well, whatever, Bob.

Honestly, like pitpointeraussie stated, people only can determine breeds in cases like these, by those that report the attacks.
Most of the general public couldn't determine what an APBT was if it smacked them in the face.

AND your shelter statement is WRONG.

ORIGINAL: chewbecca

Well, whatever, Bob.

APBT was if it smacked them in the face.

AND your shelter statement is WRONG.

Prove it is wrong.....

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: UndefinedMelody

Bob, SHOW me these statistics the insurance companies are using to determine how "unsafe" a pibble is. I've searched and have yet to find them. What I find supports otherwise.

Why don't you call the insurance  companies yourself and ask them why they either charge more for covering a Pit Bull on a homeowners policy, or won't cover it at all.  They don't have to convince me why they are charging more, but apparently you disagree. 

The my insurance carrier never asked what kind of dogs I owned, only if they had a bite record or were protection trainer.  They don't seem to have gone out of business yet due to an insane number of pit bulls claims, and we live in an area where pits are common.

Just thought I'd add this--I looked at another insurance carriers website-

They would not cover me if I had a pit, rot, or dobe.  However, they would cover me if I had a "staffordshire terrier."  If it is just about frequency of bites per breed, then I am also confused as to why they would cover GSDs but not dobes, which I believe "offically" have a higher bite rate.

As a point of interest, the other breeds that they "flagged" were boxers, presas, mastiffs, bull mastiffs, St Bernards, chow chows, akitas, great danes, labradors and collies.