terrible dog attack

Plus, consider that pit bull terriers (and mixes, and lookalike breeds which are all headed under the "pit bull" term) are incredibly abundant in this country...millions...strays, pets, outdoor dogs, indoor dogs...statistically the more prevalent the breed, the more bites there will be. Just reading the numbers withou taking into consideration other factors is useless.

 

For example, if some imaginary breed of dog may be registered by the CDC for 1 bites/yr. But even if they are the most aggressive things on the planet, if there are only a few of them, any bites will be rare. See what I mean? It works the other way too. There are more car accidents in big cities because there are more cars, not because people are necessarily worse drivers.

That CDC study you cite lists the top dog as "pit bull type" dog. That can include anything that even resembles a pit, including the "nicer" breeds like boxers, bulldogs, etc.

 
The CDC even said flat out that things in this report should not be used for policy making or for determining which breeds of dog are more likely to bite - because their categories were almost all "xxx-"type" dog categories. There was no way of knowing what breed of dog was in which category for sure.

 

And I don't know where you live, but here in Blacksburg, Vick is hardly a "hometown hero". In fact, he is pretty reviled, by townies and study body alike...... 

 

 That does not quite compare to getting bit by a Chihuahua

I guess you didn't see this:

"The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"

 

 

whtsthfrequency

 That does not quite compare to getting bit by a Chihuahua

I guess you didn't see this:

"The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"

 yes, I'm sure the outcomes for all of these victims would be the same had it been a pomeranian attacking them. I do not believe that pit bulls are any more aggressive towards people than any other breed but once they do attack, they have the ability and inclination to far more damage, to MAUL people.  THat is not the same as the 5 year old getting bitten on the face by the family labrador.  Pit bulls are extrememly powerful dogs and were bred to be that way. They are bred to fight and kill other dogs and they need the strength to do so.  THat is why the mauling statistics outweigh the bite statistics.

 And no, the "pit bull type" listed in the fatal attack statistics does not include bulldogs and boxers.  THey have their own categories.  I'm sure there are idiots out there that can't tell the difference, but most people can recognize a boxer or english bulldog.  Am staffs, cane corsos and bull terriers are rare compared to pit bulls  so they couldn't possibly make up a significant portion of the statistic. 

 I do not think BSL is the answer (and I wish I had an answer but I don't)   but I'm tired of people scraping to find alternate explanations to facts and statistics.  It only undermines the credibility of those trying to do something good for the breed.

pudel

I do not think BSL is the answer (and I wish I had an answer but I don't)   but I'm tired of people scraping to find alternate explanations to facts and statistics.  It only undermines the credibility of those trying to do something good for the breed

 

I don't see where anyone was trying to find alternate explanations to facts and statistics. The mentioned statistics may not be right. it's not fair to say pit bulls accounted for the most bites when it may be pits, staffs, etc, etc...

I know it sometimes seems like everyone is dissecting a dog attack, but dogs normally don't just attack to attack. There could be tons of reasons.

 

RidgebackGermansShep

it's not fair to say pit bulls accounted for the most bites when it may be pits, staffs, etc, etc...

Did you even read what I wrote about that?  Honestly, how many am staffs are there in this coutnry compared to pit bull - 1 per every 1000 maybe?  And what other common breed that does not have its own category on the this is including in your "etc etc"?

I can't find the direct stats I quoted anymore other than in historical information from the late 70's early 80's when Great Danes actually led in fatal bites. What about the problem with Great Danes? Or is that solved, now? And how was it solved? Because thugs decided they liked the Pit Bull more than the Great Dane? Huskies also had fatal dog bites.

Also, a great many bites go unreported. It would seem, according to the CDC, that Rotties might actually be more prone to bite. But, again, they only go on what's reported and had to exclude dogs of unknown breed, which is itself, a decisive lens to look through. I still don't think it's the breed. It's the greater number of dogs, with one breed being popular with thug owners.

Let me ask a question, then. Have any of the PB owners here been bitten by their own dog? I have been bitten by Shadow once, a stupid mistake on my part. And Mark, since you are new here, my dog is a mix of Siberian Husky and Lab.

 

One of the things that could impact the problem over all without resorting banning of breeds would be to enforce the current legislations on the books.  However, that takes money.  There are choices to be made,  will more staff be hired;  will court resources be redirected toward dog related offenses;  will folks support adoption and euthanasia which will be an outcome of dogs removed from irresponsible owners. 

 Until folks pressure city and county governments to address the problems through greater enforcement, we will be at risk for hysterical reactions in the form of more restrictive legislation.  Look at Lousiville as one example as to what happened following a fatal dog attack.  Unfunded mandates make no real difference, that is currently the case with required rabies and licenses.  Why will these newly proposed laws be any different?

Breed bans don't work, you just get a new "Breed" to fill that gap.  I unfortunately own one of the breeds likely to step into that gap.  In some places it already has.... Geico insurance bans three breeds, mine is one of them.  Most people cant even recognize a malinois when they see it nor pronounce the word correctly.

 

pudel

They are bred to fight and kill other dogs and they need the strength to do so

Incorrect. They were bred to latch onto prey and slow it down for the human hunter and then release upon command. Thugs raise and train dogs to fight. And have challenges as not every Pit Bull wants to fight. They kill the losers and non-fighters (ala Michael Vick) giving the appearance that the breed is a killer.

pudel

THat is not the same as the 5 year old getting bitten on the face by the family labrador

Yes, it is. In fact, Labs are generally taller and longer than PBs and can run a little faster.

pudel

RidgebackGermansShep

it's not fair to say pit bulls accounted for the most bites when it may be pits, staffs, etc, etc...

Did you even read what I wrote about that?  Honestly, how many am staffs are there in this coutnry compared to pit bull - 1 per every 1000 maybe?  And what other common breed that does not have its own category on the this is including in your "etc etc"?

How many am staffs? Are you kidding? A lot of times they are considered a "pit bull". I guess you are referring to an american pit bull terrier? Other breeds...well there are stafforshire bull terriers that are also often considered a "pit bull" . Bull terriers are also sometimes considered a pit bull. Some people that are well educated in dog breeds STILL can't tell the difference in an am staff and APBT. And don't even get me started on people who AREN'T educated. I have been asked, maybe 10 times or more, if my 92 lb rhodesian ridgeback is a pit bull. So what if some of the reported dog bites are from a dog like a rhodesian ridgeback...people might not know the breed and say they were bitten by a pit mix.

Good grief, this is going in circles IMO. Guys, no one is going to prove that pitbulls don't have the potential or the history of causing serious damage occasionally in attacks. I can tell you that I see them on an increasing basis in the ED. This fact does not mean that they aren't great pets or that on most occasions great pets. Trying to "prove" that labs can cause more damage is silly to me, because in my professional opinion based on what I see it's just not true. Lab bites are more common, but they are more common. I personally think (but again what do I know) that this conversation should focus on the great pittie pets out there and not on trying to convince someone they aren't really capable of the things people say, because they are. I think the important point is that most pitties are great pets like indie, rosie, and tek oh and my brother's pittie mix toby. The bad apples get more press then the good ones with this breed. I know it's not the subject, but BSL focuses on a breed based on what a few do. It's like castrating all men because a few are rapists. The truth is that most are great husbands, brothers, fathers...........

ottoluv

It's like castrating all men because a few are rapists. The truth is that most are great husbands, brothers, fathers...........

I like this. I agree.

ottoluv

Guys, no one is going to prove that pitbulls don't have the potential or the history of causing serious damage occasionally in attacks. I can tell you that I see them on an increasing basis in the ED. This fact does not mean that they aren't great pets or that on most occasions great pets. Trying to "prove" that labs can cause more damage is silly to me, because in my professional opinion based on what I see it's just not true. Lab bites are more common, but they are more common.

 Exaclty my point.  Trying to convince people that pit bulls, labs and chihuahuas and pomeranians all would do the same amount of damage once they attack makes pit bull defenders look stupid.

 

How many am staffs? Are you kidding? A lot of times they are considered a "pit bull".

What are you talking about?  There are only about 1700 Am Staffs registered per year.  Do you have any idea how many pit bulls there are in comparison??  There is probably that number alone in a single city in the US. 

mrv

Breed bans don't work, you just get a new "Breed" to fill that gap.

 

 BSL legislation has been in affect for over a decade in some countries. In Ontario we have had a ban since 2005, yet I find it almost impossible to find any stats reflecting its impact - either pro or against. What has happened in areas where BSL has been put in place? Has 'another' breed become the dog of choice by the thugs? Has the breed all but disappeared? Has there in fact been a drop in fatal attacks by dogs? Where are the numbers?

In Toronto, I still see quite a few pit bulls on the streets. The majority are not muzzled and quite a few are obviously younger than 5 years of age. The last reported pit bull attack in the Toronto news was March 2007. The only other numbers I was able to find were:

Ontario Pit Bull Ban Greatly Reduces Bite Count

Pit Bull Bites Dramatically Reduced in Toronto
Toronto, Ontario - Since the Dog Owners' Liability Act kicked in on Aug. 29, 2005, which bans new pit bulls, reports of bites by pit bull type dogs have dropped dramatically. In 2004, there were 130 reports of pit bull bites. The numbers decreased greatly in subsequent years: 71 in 2005; 53 in 2006; and 44 in 2007.

Concern about pit bull attacks prompted the Ontario government to target pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and any other dog that possesses the physical characteristics of them. Existing owners could keep their dogs with restrictions: mandatory sterilization, muzzled and leashed when off property.

Of the 722 pit bull type dogs that have been destroyed since the ban, 297 were euthanized because they lacked an owner; 188 due to behavioral problems; 12 due to court order; 42 due to illness and injury; and 183 upon request of their owner. Over time, as banned canines that fall under the pit bull label grow old and die, the targeted breeds will just disappear.

This however was published by a group supporting the ban and it does not source the number. I am so surprised that with bans being in place now for some time there is not more information. 

There was a recent PBS program on the breed ban in the UK to impact dog fighting... Guess what,,, not working,,,, folks are transporting the dogs all over Europe to participate in dog fighting.  Most dogs are listed at lab mixes.

 http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?go=homepage&scope=all&tab=all&q=breed+ban%2C+dog+figthing

links to multiple related articles at the BBC

 Folks who want a "bad" dog will find them.  Make one breed less available, another will take its place....

Granted law abiding folks will comply,,, but what about others..... I still think  aggressive enforcement of existing laws that are NOT breed specific is a much better approach in the long run.... Once one breed is gone, there is less of a threshold to the elimination of another.

pudel

What are you talking about?  There are only about 1700 Am Staffs registered per year.  Do you have any idea how many pit bulls there are in comparison??  There is probably that number alone in a single city in the US. 

Sorry, i misunderstood. I thought you meant that  1 in 1000 am staffs might be recognized as a pit bull. my apologies.