What Should Be Done About Pit Bull Owners?

    • Gold Top Dog
    UndefinedMelody, you don't find the statistics because they're not there. They don't exist.

    The reason they charge more is because of the rampant ignorance of people and their willingness to believe what they hear on FOX news and other fear-based media -- without asking for proof or data to back up the accusations. They have no statistics. They are as guilty of "breedism" as the next guy. They do it to make money. They do it to put the public's mind at ease. They do it because of the Pit Bull hysteria. They do it to instill a false sense of security.

    And people eat that stuff up like it means something. [sm=sad.gif]

    It's one thing to acknowledge that the insurance companies charge more (I acknowledge that). But it's totally another to dismiss all critical thought and blindly agree with their baseless reasoning when they show nothing at all to back it up...
    • Puppy



    ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany
    Let's educate ourselves, shall we? [sm=happy.gif]

    Excellent idea!

    ORIGINAL: buster the show dog
    ... 1) they have a greater tendency to be aggressive toward other dogs than most breeds, and are more likely to inflict serious damage when they express that aggression, 2) pit bulls and pit mixes often make up the largest portion of shelter dog populations, with it not being unusual for them to exceed 50 % of the total in large urban areas.

    ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany
    Can you show me your sources that support these data?


    Well for one example of a pro-pit bull site that discusses the large portion of shelter populations that are made up of pit bulls, go here [linkhttp://www.happypitbull.com/overpop.htm]pit bulls in shelters[/link].

    Pit bulls were historically rigorously bred to have exceptional drive to fight other dogs, were extremely strongly selected to not quit a fight once it had started (indeed this was the single most highly prized trait in a pit bull), and were bred to be extraordinarily powerful. Add to that a few decades of being the breed of choice of drug dealers and to bolster the manhood of street thugs. And you need statistics to demonstrate that this would produce a population of dogs that is more likely to be dog aggressive and more likely to inflict serious damage when they express that aggression than a snappy ill-tempered cocker? Seriously?

    ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany
    Pit bull attack stats may surprise you
    ...
    In 37 years, 342 children were killed by dogs, an average of about nine children a year. Shockingly, approximately three children are killed each day, or 1,100 per year, by their parents. Delise notes that "A child in the United States is over 100 times more likely to be killed by his or her parent or caretaker than by a dog."

    Source: [link>http://www.la-spca.org/dedication/talk/t_judge.htm]http://www.la-spca.org/dedication/talk/t_judge.htm

    Now, I ask you... What's to be done about PARENTS?


    Well a discussion of abusive parents is sort of off topic for this forum. But, you will notice that no where in my original post did I define the pit bull problem as one of them being a principle cause of human death. I defined the problem as being one of there being far to many of them, causing them being a leading contributor to shelter populations and of them being more likely to be dog aggressive and to inflict serious damage when they express that aggression. So, lets address those problems, shall we?


    ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany

    And remember, there are several breeds that the public calls Pit Bulls.  .... It's very likely that many vicious dogs reported as "Pit Bulls" are actually several other breeds.


    Quite often dogs that attack are identified as pit bulls when they are not.  ...  The worst part of this identity problem is that the initial attack has frontpage coverage with PIT BULL all over it.  Then several day's later when they properly identify the dog as a mix breed or another breed that story is a line or two on page 30 buried.  

    Source: [linkhttp://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm]http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm[/link]

    In fact... Take this test. Can you, a dog saavy person,
    Spot the Pit Bull?
      [linkhttp://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html]http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html[/link]
    How accurately do you think the general public can indentify one?


    Which is one of the several reasons I alluded to that I don't favor breed specific bans. But this thread, and my post were about breed specific requirements for pit bull owners. So, lets address that. Since irresponsibly owned pit bulls vastly outnumber irresponsibly owned clumber spaniels, Belgian sheepdogs, Polish lowland sheepdogs etc etc., and since irresponsibly owned pit bulls pose greater threats to the safety of other dogs than the smaller number of irresponsibly owned chihuahuas and Greater Swiss Mountain dogs and Scottish deerhounds, why not target regulations to the population that is causing the greatest problem? Why not decrease the degree of irresponsible ownership of pit bulls even if it does nothing to prevent the plague of irresponsibly owned Tibetan terriers?
    Who exactly would be harmed if owners of intact pit bulls were required to get a CGC on those dogs by the time they reached adult hood?
    Here's how I think this would be beneficial. Any serious responsible owner of a pit bull with proper temperament would have no difficulty passing a Mickey Mouse CGC test. Indeed this would be a ridiculously simple requirement compared to the health screening and more rigorous temperament testing that any marginally responsible breeder would do. So, no even marginally responsible breeder of pit bulls would be even inconvenienced by this requirement. On the other hand, the street thug who owns pit bulls to bolster his sagging sense of manhood is unlikely to neuter or enter his dog in a CGC test. So, now, rather than having to wait to be invited to witness the dog fight in the alley tonight, the animal control officer merely has to ask to see the spay certificate (or lack of testicles) or the CGC certificate before confiscating the dog. Yeah, sadly, shelter populations may initially go up as these dogs are removed from their chains in back yards and from the pathetic individuals that breed them to fight them. But, now that law enforcement no longer has to wait for the extremely rare opportunity to break up a fight in progress there is a chance to break the cycle of breeding more and more tougher and tougher fighters. And the casual back yard breeder that just produces a litter for a bit of profit, or because they like raising puppies or whatever may decide that it isn't worth the effort if they have to actually demonstrate a minimal amount of training on their dog. Or, if they do actually get the CGC certificate, at least they've now been forced to interact with their dog enough to train it to some minimal standard. And they may enroll in a class to do so, and they may learn a bit about responsible dog ownership in the process. As a major component of the shelter population decreases (perhaps after an initial spike), there is less pressure to pass restrictive legislation like that recently proposed in CA that treats all breeders (except the puppy millers who are mysteriously always exempt) the same. Breeders of Gordon setters, working cattle dogs, guide dogs, and border terriers are no longer subject to additional licensing fees, breeder permits and the uncertainty of what the requirements will be next year because of a problem that is largely caused by irresponsible owners of pit bulls.

    Who loses?

    ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany
    [font="book antiqua"]The American Canine Temperament Testing Association, which sponsors tests for temperament titles for dogs, reported that 95% of all APBTs that take the test pass, compared with a 77% passing rate for all breeds on average. The APBT's passing rate was the fourth highest of all the breeds tested.[/font]
    Source: [linkhttp://www.valleyofthesundogrescue.com/apbt_fact_page.htm]http://www.valleyofthesundogrescue.com/apbt_fact_page.htm[/link]



    Comparing the meaningless passing rate of a minute non-random sample of pit bulls to the meaningless pass rate of a minute non-random sample of other breeds is, well, meaningless. If you want to discuss why the numbers of passes and failures on the ATTS test is meaningless feel free to start a thread on that topic, and I'll happily chime in. But that's really off topic for this thread.



    • Gold Top Dog
    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.

     
    Their rules have nothing to do with frequency of bites.  It's cost of claims.  Big difference!!!!
     
     
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

    ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany

    ORIGINAL: buster the show dog
    ... 1) they have a greater tendency to be aggressive toward other dogs than most breeds, and are more likely to inflict serious damage when they express that aggression, 2) pit bulls and pit mixes often make up the largest portion of shelter dog populations, with it not being unusual for them to exceed 50 % of the total in large urban areas.


    Can you show me your sources that support these data?

    Let's educate ourselves, shall we? [sm=happy.gif]




    I have volunteered  in 2 different shelters, and in fact I am leaving in a few minutes for the shelter where I currently volumteer to work with a Pit Mix that we have been training for over 2 months.  The difference in this dog today, from when we started, is amazing.  And yet, the down side, is that she will try an attack almost  any black  young child that walks near her in the shelter, and she is also very dog aggressive. Whenever we take her out of her kennel, we have to be constantly on guard, and I don't hold out alot of hope for anyone that will adopt her because of these aggressive tendencies. We have many Pits and Pit Mixes that are in the same condition, and if this wasn't a no-kill shelter, they probably would have been put down within  a few days of arriving. Are these scientifically compiled  "statistics", well not really, but when you talk to shelter workers and see the dogs that come in every day, the pattern becomes pretty obvious, and I doubt if it differs that much from shelter to shelter. If you doubt these "statistics", try volunteering at a shelter for a few months, and I think you will see that it is not quite what you think it is. 



    IMHO, your shelter has no business adopting out human aggressive dogs or dogs that display high levels of dogs aggression-at all.  I have no problem with dogs like that being PTS.
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany

    UndefinedMelody, you don't find the statistics because they're not there. They don't exist.

    The reason they charge more is because of the rampant ignorance of people and their willingness to believe what they hear on FOX news and other fear-based media -- without asking for proof or data to back up the accusations. They have no statistics. They are as guilty of "breedism" as the next guy. They do it to make money. They do it to put the public's mind at ease. They do it because of the Pit Bull hysteria. They do it to instill a false sense of security.

    And people eat that stuff up like it means something. [sm=sad.gif]

    It's one thing to acknowledge that the insurance companies charge more (I acknowledge that). But it's totally another to dismiss all critical thought and blindly agree with their baseless reasoning when they show nothing at all to back it up...



    I doubt if you can back up with facts, any of the claims that you are making.....
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: timsdat

    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.


    Their rules have nothing to do with frequency of bites.  It's cost of claims.  Big difference!!!!




    Maybe so, but then I wonder why there are some comanies that do not even ask the breed of dog.  That doesn't seem financally sound, does it?
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
    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.


    Really? 

    According to this article, "While the debate rages on, many major insurance carriers continue to limit coverage to dog owners. Large dogs that can inflict a lot of damage are prime "no-insure" targets. Other considerations that influence a company's willingness to cover a breed include the frequency of dog bites for the breed, the breed's reputation as well as research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and individual insurance companies." [linkhttp://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/insurance/bad-dog-list1.asp]http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/insurance/bad-dog-list1.asp[/link]


    Another article had this to say -
    "With 3-4 million pets euthanized in shelters each year, the insurance industry breed bans are only adding to the problem. But insurance officials blame breed bans on the latest trends: They say more dog-bite cases are going to court, and juries are awarding larger sums to victims."Obviously people have had dogs and insurance for years and years," says Alejandra Soto of the Insurance Information Institute (III). "We don't know why, but there have been more cases of dogs biting people in the past five to ten years, with these cases going to trial. Why are they ending up in court more than they used to? We don't know."http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/insurance_companies_unfairly_target_specific_dog_breeds.html

    So let's see .... juries made of people who are influenced by the media are awarding big sums to injured victims.  Gee, no way that a pitbull's bad reputation could influence that.  Nope. 
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: Dog_ma

    ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
    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.


    Really? 

    According to this article, "While the debate rages on, many major insurance carriers continue to limit coverage to dog owners. Large dogs that can inflict a lot of damage are prime "no-insure" targets. Other considerations that influence a company's willingness to cover a breed include the frequency of dog bites for the breed, the breed's reputation as well as research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and individual insurance companies." [linkhttp://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/insurance/bad-dog-list1.asp]http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/insurance/bad-dog-list1.asp[/link]


    Another article had this to say -
    "With 3-4 million pets euthanized in shelters each year, the insurance industry breed bans are only adding to the problem. But insurance officials blame breed bans on the latest trends: They say more dog-bite cases are going to court, and juries are awarding larger sums to victims."Obviously people have had dogs and insurance for years and years," says Alejandra Soto of the Insurance Information Institute (III). "We don't know why, but there have been more cases of dogs biting people in the past five to ten years, with these cases going to trial. Why are they ending up in court more than they used to? We don't know."http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/insurance_companies_unfairly_target_specific_dog_breeds.html

    So let's see .... juries made of people who are influenced by the media are awarding big sums to injured voctims.  Gee, no way that a pitbull's bad reputation could influence that.  Nope. 



    Now if we can just do away with the people, the courts, the media , and the insurance companies all we be solved   [;)]
    • Gold Top Dog
    The solution is still not to do away with the dogs.
    • Gold Top Dog
    Bob, you've crossed the line.  How dare you! Quote my typos, that is.  [sm=no%20no%20smiley.gif] 

    Me and my sloppy fingers. [:(]
    • Gold Top Dog
    Frankly, I don't think it's fair to demand that owners of field spaniels and affenpinschers and whippets etc etc meet the same standards as owners of dogs specifically bred to be aggressive to other dogs and of breeds that hugely contribute to the problem of homeless animals.


    Welll, I don't know if anyone is still reading but I wanted to comment on this quote. 

    As a chow owner I actually do agree with this.  There are certain breeds that the owner does need to have more knowledge to own.  That's why so many end up in shelters, they are adopted to the wrong people.  So, it's not the breed it's the people doing the adopting that are at fault there, just MHO. 
     
     I think the problems arise when people try to kid themselves into believing the problems of their difficult breed don't exsist because they love their dog so much. 
     
    It does the breed a huge disservice to try to paint them as wonderful and loving and all peaches and cream.  Because the unfortunate reality is that while your dog may be a wonderful example of the breed or maybe an exception people will generalize, that chow was wonderful so this one must be too.  And, when they do that they might get a scary surprise.  And, then you've got yet another bite from your breed on record for those insurance companies you were talking about to tally. 

    [:)]
    • Moderators
    • Gold Top Dog
    I always love when the "stats" used by insurance companies are called out as back-up to the claim that "pits, Dobes, Rotts, etc bite more"

    It's simple. The insurance companies can only use stats reported by vets/ACOs to Dept of Ag-type agencies who are not usually required to consistently report those figures up to the CDC.  Let alone the inaccuracies in reporting - how many times have "pit-bull-types" been used to describe dogs that aren't even pits - by ACOs even.  (Anyone else recall Anne/Spiritdogs at a hearing about pits/BSL, and her account of requesting an ACO in Boston pick the pit out of a photo.  The ACO refused with the message being clear they likely would choose incorrectly.)

    And to get off of picking apart who can properly identify a pit, lets just look at our OWN experiences....  How many of you/your family have been bitten in any way by a dog?  How many of you reported that bite and know that the bite was reported to the town officials/dept of Ag/or whatever group manages those stats which are passed to the CDC?  Of those which were escalated, how many were non-pit/Dobe/Rott/GSD/insert-typically-touted-"biters"-here?  And how many of those same non-pit/Rott types were dropped off from ever being reported/counted?  I'd venture a vast majority.

    The stats they base these arguments on are built upon a foundation of completely inconsistent reports, over the course of several years.  Even now, there is little true consistency in dog-bite report data-gathering - it's a tough thing that many states are working on.  But go ahead, say it: "well, it's the best information we have and it proves well-enough to me".... you will be equally biased and under-educated at the beginning of your argument as the end.  To me, insurance carriers restricting certain breeds is not a viable tool in the pro-BSL'ers game.

    Meanwhile, my own insurance company never asked what breed I have, even though I offered it up in conversation. 
    • Puppy
    Ok, I will admit right off the bat that I don't know how insurance companies do or do not collect statistics on dog bites. But, I see no reason why they would have to depend on stats from vets/ACO's etc. I would think that they keep track of who they have to pay out claims for, and what the circumstances would be. I've never had to make any claim on my homeowner's insurance, much less a dog related claim. But, when I had to file a claim on my car insurance for my cracked windshield I don't think that they had to go to the DMV for info on what kind of car I have or how old I am. They have that info in their own data base. I would think that whenever an insurer paid out a claim for a dog bite that they might ask the owner what kind of dog was involved just as they ask me how my windshield happened to get cracked and just as my health insurer grills my physician about whether that x-ray of my bashed knee was really necessary, and how it happened to get bashed in the first place. Owners usually have some idea what kind of dog they have. Not always of course, but I doubt that many owners are telling their insurance company that their boxer or their Boston terrier is really a pit bull. Anyway, I don't see why insurance companies would be limited to statistics compiled by government agencies. In my experience with other types of insurance they seem to be pretty capable of gathering information about their client and the circumstance surrounding a claim all by their lonesome.
    • Puppy
    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.



    And we couldn't get homeowners insurance from Geico because we have a German Shepard blooded dog (mix). 

    Hi....  Can anyone say police dogs?  So they are good enough to take a bullet for us but not to live in my house?  Nice.

    As a professional dog walker, I can honestly tell you the only dogs that have bitten me are a Chihuahua and a Wire haired Fox Terrier.  I think the two real questions are what should be done about dog owners who don't properly restrain their dogs (i.e. leash, fence, etc) and what should be done about parents who don't teach their children not to run up on a strange dog.  If you ran up on me screaming like a banshee I'd bite you too.  Incidentally, you'd be suprised at home many full grown dog owners run up on a strange dog with their dog so they can "Say Hi!"  This is the bane on my dog walking existance.  Ask, ask, ask!
     
    Dogs aren't the problem.  People are the problem.

     
    FYI:  I've owned three Dobes and the only dog I've ever had to moniter around children or other dogs is my McCartney my German Shepard/Austrailian Cattle Dog mix. Yet kids run toward Mac and mothers snatch the away from the dobes. 
     
    Check out.. [linkhttp://www.dpca.org/Legisltv/Magnet.htm]http://www.dpca.org/Legisltv/Magnet.htm[/link]  Ban the Deed Not the Breed !
    • Moderators
    • Gold Top Dog
    Having worked for an insurance company, I can tell you that the insurance risk factors that are analyzed and used to determine ratings of risks (and therefore insurability and/or premium rates), are based on more than claim pay-outs, exclusively.  For dogs specifically, most/many incorporate the use of stats reported by the CDC back in 2001.