Are pit Bulls more prone to attack?

[Aroua999]

And, specifically, are their attacks more likely to be severe?

We have a neighbor who explained to our landlord that all pit bull stats are just media hype, and pit bulls are no more likely to bite or be involved in a fatal attacks than any other breed. Since we are about to have a little one around, I decided to research it. All "official" research I can find indicated pitbulls and dogs with pitbull characteristics, along with rotweilers and wolf cross breeds ARE more likely to attack and main/kill than other dogs per capita.
Here is a CDC report from 1979 to 1997
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
Here is a compilation of all US and canadian dog attacks by breed from 1982 to 2006:
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf
So all the defense I have found of the breed is based on a few points:

1) Irresponsible owners. Thses types of people are drawn to "dangerous" dog breeds, making the breed more likely to bite.

2) It's the victims fault. The people attacked are often children who have bad parents. These children, average age 8, provoked the dog before it attacked. Also adults who ignore the warning signs of a dog about to attack.
(My thoughts here are children are doing this to ALL dog breeds. This effect should be global, not breed specific, and so I think it's a null argument).

3) misidentification of breed. This one puzzles me a bit. Would this not also happen with other dog breeds?

4) More people are struck by lightining, more children killed by malfunctioning cribs, etc, than are killed by these dogs. (I hate this type of argument whenever it is applied to any argument. Just because more people become addicted to Benzos than SSRI's does not mean SSRI's are non-addicitive, It's an spin thing, and if taken to far becomes a true logical fallacy).

There are no stats that refute either of the above links, just defending why it is so.

Sadly, there is a secondary side effect. More people are drawn to owning these dogs since they are becomming the FOTY (or decade), but find they cannot handle these breeds, so more are being brought to shelters. The % of these breds being put to sleep in shelters has gone up from 2% to 26% in recent years. That is a lot of dead dogs :cry: I would never advocate euthenasia for a healthy normal dog of any breed. But too many people just cannot seem to handle them.

It's fair to note that the majority of attacks of ALL dog breeds are by sexually intact males. But since my neighbors dog is not fixed...this doesn't help me feel better personally.

So, this is kind of like the gun issue. Do dogs kill people or do bad owners kill people?

Anyone else have a take on this issue?

[Lord_Phoenix]

Dogs are like people, how they behave is usually due to how they were raised and how they have been treated in life, with genetics playing a little in there.

As for 26% of the dogs being euthanized in shelters, that's sad, but it's still better than PETA, which euthanized nearly 91% of all animals it took in in 2005.

[Aroua999]

Well, I guess that depends on how a person feels about nature/nurture and teh %'s involved.

The only time I was bitten by a dog was at a friends house when Iw a around 10 or 11. I was huggging her a the front door, and their German Shepard ran out of the garage and bit me pretty badly on the leg. This was his third bite (one dog, one other person) so he was put down. I felt horrible, but that's the law.

I wasn't prejudiced though. At 21 I got my first dog on my own, a Shepard/collie mix. She was a big dog, about 1.5 years old, named her Nala. The most gently, loving, even tempered dog I've ever known. I had her around my little cousins, age 3 and 6 at the time. They could litteraly hang off her ears and tail and she would just slobber and lick their faces. When strange people or dogs were around, she would roll onto her back with her toung hanging out. You could NOT have convinced me that she was aggresive.

Took her to a family camping trip about a year after getting her. Another older cousin had brought a friend (a 30 something year old male), and the second Nala saw him she freaked out. It was everything I could do to hold onto the leash. She was snarling, growling, pulling with everything she had to rip this guy to shreds. He tried looking away, behaving submisive, it didn't help. Someone suggested he take off his hat (an Aussie style with a feather in it) and he did so and put it under the table. In the blink of an eye, Nala was back to her grinning drooling happy self. I am SO glad I had her on a leash like I was supposed to.

This man did nothing to provoke her, she had never shown aggresion before, or since (she's passed away now), and I am a firm but loving owner. Granted, she was a pound dog so who knows what had been done to her in the first 1.5 years of her life, but my point is that dogs can attack without (know) provocation, and good temperment (often cited in defense) does not mean a dog will not attack. Responsible owners is the only real help, and even that isn't 100%.

I really think all dangerous breeds, not just pit bulls/Rots, should only be owned by licensed owners. I think this would help a lot.

[Atoyota]

Dogs are bred for behavioral characteristics.

In fact all domesticated animals (with a purpose) are...

Retrievers will retrieve with very little training, but training only makes them more effective or better at it. Pointers point, same deal...

A pit bull may be more aggressive, but proper training allows you to control that aggression more effectively.

These amateur pit bull owners do not know or understand the breed well enough to train them properly, and that makes the dogs dangerous. They aren't as well trained or monitored. It doesn't mean all pit bulls are dangerous, but the potential is there, or more prevalent.

The breed has become so popular, and by people who's motives for owning them is questionable at best. With the result of random attacks having risen since is only to be expected.

It's a no brainer...

[sleipnira]

The pit bulls I have known have been friendly
but this site does say they were bred for fighting..& that the back-yard breeders have mis-bred to enhance their vicious traits.

http://www.everything-pitbulls.com/

I know that cocker spaniels are very likely to bite.

I think that they are a breed to keep an eye on, but you should do that with any dog.

[Jacosta]

Well, I guess that depends on how a person feels about nature/nurture and teh %'s involved.

The only time I was bitten by a dog was at a friends house when Iw a around 10 or 11. I was huggging her a the front door, and their German Shepard ran out of the garage and bit me pretty badly on the leg. This was his third bite (one dog, one other person) so he was put down. I felt horrible, but that's the law.

I wasn't prejudiced though. At 21 I got my first dog on my own, a Shepard/collie mix. She was a big dog, about 1.5 years old, named her Nala. The most gently, loving, even tempered dog I've ever known. I had her around my little cousins, age 3 and 6 at the time. They could litteraly hang off her ears and tail and she would just slobber and lick their faces. When strange people or dogs were around, she would roll onto her back with her toung hanging out. You could NOT have convinced me that she was aggresive.

Took her to a family camping trip about a year after getting her. Another older cousin had brought a friend (a 30 something year old male), and the second Nala saw him she freaked out. It was everything I could do to hold onto the leash. She was snarling, growling, pulling with everything she had to rip this guy to shreds. He tried looking away, behaving submisive, it didn't help. Someone suggested he take off his hat (an Aussie style with a feather in it) and he did so and put it under the table. In the blink of an eye, Nala was back to her grinning drooling happy self. I am SO glad I had her on a leash like I was supposed to.

This man did nothing to provoke her, she had never shown aggresion before, or since (she's passed away now), and I am a firm but loving owner. Granted, she was a pound dog so who knows what had been done to her in the first 1.5 years of her life, but my point is that dogs can attack without (know) provocation, and good temperment (often cited in defense) does not mean a dog will not attack. Responsible owners is the only real help, and even that isn't 100%.

I really think all dangerous breeds, not just pit bulls/Rots, should only be owned by licensed owners. I think this would help a lot.

The last thing the guy should have done was act submissive. He should have acted like he was an alpha and dominated Nala forcing her into submission. A trick you can do to counter a dog's aggressive behavior is for you to tap their neck with two fingers and call their name. This snaps them out of the behavior and allows for people you know and trust to establish dominance.

A good show to watch on dealing with dogs in general is The Dog Whisperer. I really like Cesar and his approach to dealing with dogs, so much so that I use his techniques with my own dogs. I'm trying to train my brother to be a pack leader because Cocoa has a bad tendency of jumping up on him in her excitement to see him. Dog training is more about training the owner to channel a dog's natural tendencies then about training the dog.

[Atoyota]

/agreed

dogs have a psyche or pack mentality, and in training you have to address or use it as a method of conditioning

[DCpunk]

It's also important to mention that pitbulls are FULL of energy. If they don't get plenty of time to RUN, not just be walked, but all out RUN every day, they get very rambunctious.

[Atoyota]

ride a bike if you own a dog (almost any dog) :)

food for thought :D

[Abbzug]

I think they're definitely bred for aggression and strength. They don't necessarily have to be raised that way though. But that's what attracts most owners to the breed. And really you have to wonder about someone who gets a dog which has a very well-known reputation of intimidating people.

That goes for other breeds as well like rotts, dobermans and bouviers. I've known good rotts and dobermans, most of the dobermans I've met were sweethearts (though very high strung). But only bad experiences with the other two breeds.

I'm not too comfortable around most dogs I don't know though. I was bitten as a toddler by my parents dog and he had to be put down. I have a giant slaphappy lab who seems to be popular in the dog world, so now it's easier to socialize with other peoples dogs while I'm walking him. But yeah I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable living next to someone with a pit bull, especially if I had children. I guess I prefer more happy go lucky dogs which aren't quite as neurotic or intimidating.

[Lord_Phoenix]

Here's some history and breed information on them from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

[Aroua999]

Yeah, I read the Wiki on them. That's where I found the list of more excuses.
I do think owners are more to blame thatn the dogs. The dogs can't help how they are bred. Fact is they were bred to fight and kill other animals though. Hence the idea of licensing seems a good one. For the dogs benefit as well as the safety of others. Our neighbor even told our landklord the myth about locking jaws...and he is the OWNER of the Pit! If he is that ignorant, I am not really happy to have his dog around.
Btw, when my dog Nala attempted to attack, the fellow tried all sorts of things. It took more than 5 minutes to calm her down. It was also 11 years ago so I don't recall what all he tried, but I remember it was the hat that did it.

So she was going to attack him because of a HAT he was wearing. We speculate her previous owner abused her and wore a similar hat, but who knows? And how exactly was he supposed to get close enough to touch her neck when she was ready to bite off anything that got near?

Anyway, thank heavens she never did it or anything like that again. It was some wierd unpredictable behavior though. If a dog that instinctually bites faces and necks (like a pit) instead of hands arms and calves(like a Shepard or a Collie) has a bad day like my dog did...it's a FAR WORSE day and they can and do damage 10x as bad.

If a cocker spanial bites by kid, they generally won't have to be in the hospitl or dead. Even German shepards. The 3 dog breeds I mentioned earlier just cause more damage if they do happen to bite. Heck, my dad got bitten by a little pomeranian of our neighbors a few years back, and it barely broke the skin.
This isn't aobut which dogs bite more...well it, is, because the DO (did anyone read my links, the CDC??) but which ones cause more damage and death when they do.

I know some people think the breed (APBT) is maligned. But after reading up, the facts and statistics are that they ARE more dangerous, and support and defense of the animals tends to be on the "well, you are more likelyto be killed by lightning!" or the "MY dog is sweet as pie!" arguments. These are weak arguments. As I've already pointed out, temperment means nada. Any dog can attack. I feel bad for good owners, but man, why would you want to own a dog that will kill your kid or neighbor, instead of just giving them a bit of a bite, if it has a bad day?

[Atoyota]

Yup the attitude should be similar to guns, it's not the dog so much as the owner.

You take on a pet, you are responsible for it. You also should be qualified or knowledgeable enough to deserve the creature, and have the correct facilities and "space" for it to live in.

I love dogs, but got two cats because I can't care for dogs properly, given my life commitments and living space. Dogs will be in my life again, once I can care for them properly.

Damn cats... :rolleyes:

But they coolio :cool:

[Aroua999]

Yup the attitude should be similar to guns, it's not the dog so much as the owner.

You take on a pet, you are responsible for it. You also should be qualified or knowledgeable enough to deserve the creature, and have the correct facilities and "space" for it to live in.

I love dogs, but got two cats because I can't care for dogs properly, given my life commitments and living space. Dogs will be in my life again, once I can care for them properly.

Damn cats... :rolleyes:

But they coolio :cool:

Ha ! Same here. It's hard to live in apartments with dogs, so we have a cat. My husband loves that cat more than me I think, too! Lol.
I hope we get dogs again someday, but reality may prove harder. Unless I get a house with some property for a dog, I would hardly feel like a good owner keeping a dog in a small space like this, unless it was an itty bitty thing. And I like Labs and similar dogs..:( Oh well,
I still love our cat :D

[Atoyota]

I still love our cat :D

Yeah same... it'sa Love/Hate relationship :D

(but yeah I love to hate them, but I do love them) :)

[Jacosta]

And how exactly was he supposed to get close enough to touch her neck when she was ready to bite off anything that got near?

I didn't say he should have touched Nala's neck. I said you should have tapped Nala's neck to break her out of the behavior. What the tap does is simulates a more dominate dog grabbing the neck fur and forcing submission. This is why it's an effective training technique because it doesn't harm the dog physically or mentally but gives you the required mindset from the animal. Owners have to be trained to be pack leaders which this technique does since you're using the dog's own behavior to get the desired result which is submission.

A dog's behavior is easily read if you know what to look for. A truly submissive dog will lay down on its back and open its belly up for petting. Just like a dog that wags their tail and their back end wags with it shows the dog is submissive to you.

[Aroua999]

A dog's behavior is easily read if you know what to look for. A truly submissive dog will lay down on its back and open its belly up for petting. Just like a dog that wags their tail and their back end wags with it shows the dog is submissive to you.
Yes, this was her behavior, towards other dogs and strangers every time but this once. She would run near a stranger and roll right onter her back. I stated that in my OP with the story, did you miss it? So she was truely submissive (by your own deffinition)...for 8 years, but one time in her 2nd year she did this.
So ya....even submissive dogs can show aggression for wierd reasons. She snapped from her normal self to agressive and back again in the blink of an eye. There was no warning growling, no tail, ear or body posture change. She became alarmed and obviously frightened very quickly (in less than 2 seconds). It was a startle reflex that continued as she continued to be frightened. Nothing I did changed it, until his hat cam off, them boom, back to her totally submissive self. If I hadn't been paying attention with the leash she would have gotten lose fast.

Remember, she was owned before. Who knows what abuse a or neglect a previous owner has inflicted? You think a normally submissive dog cannot show aggression for reasons not apparent to us? (sight, colors, smells, or other things we aren't aware of).
Point...submissive and good natured dogs can become alarmed, fightened or aggressive and hurt other people. If they are big dogs who's nature isn't to bite an arm or leg (like most shepard style dogs), but instinct is to bite the face or throat (true attack breads), someone can be maimed or dead before you have a chance to top it.
Many attacks from all breeds are from family animals that have shown no aggresive behavior previously.

Temperment of a dog does not indicate it's capability to bite, or attack. People who think their dogs will never bite, or that they are in 100% control of another living creature at all times (because they are propperly trained or normally submissive) are niave, and should not be allowed to own a dog (or any other animal). Really.

It's funny, we really got off topic here. So, according to statistics, pits and rots really ARE more likely to attack, and for the attacks to be severe. Weather it is due to owners, the dogs breeding, training, environment, nature, nurture, or whatever, the fact is that they are. Why do so many people deny it?

[Jacosta]

Yes, this was her behavior, towards other dogs and strangers every time but this once. She would run near a stranger and roll right onter her back. I stated that in my OP with the story, did you miss it? So she was truely submissive (by your own deffinition)...for 8 years, but one time in her 2nd year she did this.
So ya....even submissive dogs can show aggression for wierd reasons. She snapped from her normal self to agressive and back again in the blink of an eye. There was no warning growling, no tail, ear or body posture change. She became alarmed and obviously frightened very quickly (in less than 2 seconds). It was a startle reflex that continued as she continued to be frightened. Nothing I did changed it, until his hat cam off, them boom, back to her totally submissive self. If I hadn't been paying attention with the leash she would have gotten lose fast.

Remember, she was owned before. Who knows what abuse a or neglect a previous owner has inflicted? You think a normally submissive dog cannot show aggression for reasons not apparent to us? (sight, colors, smells, or other things we aren't aware of).
Point...submissive and good natured dogs can become alarmed, fightened or aggressive and hurt other people. If they are big dogs who's nature isn't to bite an arm or leg (like most shepard style dogs), but instinct is to bite the face or throat (true attack breads), someone can be maimed or dead before you have a chance to top it.
Many attacks from all breeds are from family animals that have shown no aggresive behavior previously.

Temperment of a dog does not indicate it's capability to bite, or attack. People who think their dogs will never bite, or that they are in 100% control of another living creature at all times (because they are propperly trained or normally submissive) are niave, and should not be allowed to own a dog (or any other animal). Really.

It's funny, we really got off topic here. So, according to statistics, pits and rots really ARE more likely to attack, and for the attacks to be severe. Weather it is due to owners, the dogs breeding, training, environment, nature, nurture, or whatever, the fact is that they are. Why do so many people deny it?

And my point has been consistently that as the owner it is your responsibility to maintain control over your dog at all times. This requires being a pack leader all the time. I would bet that when Nala got aggressive that you were too shocked and not in control.

[Aroua999]

And my point has been consistently that as the owner it is your responsibility to maintain control over your dog at all times. This requires being a pack leader all the time. I would bet that when Nala got aggressive that you were too shocked and not in control.

You obviously enjoy constantly arguing and flaming people, have fun :D

It is your responsiblity for certain, and part of that is understanding "control". My last comment is I think you are delusional if you think people are ever 100% in control of another thinking living being. That is dangerous thinking. Being aware that you are NOT 100% in control is more important than flexing your epeen. When I lost control, I held onto the dog (so Iwas aware it could happen). She didn't hurt anyone. You probably would have been so shocked to lose control you would have lost the dogs leash. You should clearly never own animals. No one could ever control how often you attack....that is for sure. :rolleyes: You can't control yourself or your mouth, I fail to see how you could control an animal. (if I get a point, it'll be my first and worth it).

Thanks for effectively killing a topic by making it personal...again. It is an onteresting topic too.
This is like 3 or 4 I've seen you just derail personally in order to stroke your ego. I'm really sorry, but you get to be the first person on my ignore list. :cry: ~wave~

If anyone else is interested, it seems that the bigest issue seems to actually be sex and weather an animal is fixed. Almost all severe and fatal attacks are by sexually intact males. It seems like one of the most important things that can be done is to fix an animal. Males protecting females in heat, and just oddly aggressive behavior for unknown reason. Getting males and females fixed is important.

I guess thatt is one of the big problems with these dog breeds is that a lot of pople have "purebreds", and so they do not want to fix them, because they would be worth less. requiring more animals to be fixed unless you have a breeding permit or something might be a vey helpfull idea. Also would eliminate a lot of these poor unwanted animals that are put to sleep :(

People tend to be against legislation though. Don't you think if it was enforced, it could help?

[Aroua999]

Also, although people in many states need a licence for certain dangerous breeds now, and owners are being held more responsible, it clearly isn't working. I understand the whole "punish the deed not the breed" idea and sympathize, but if we can't control the stupidity of owners, what other choice is there but controlling the breed itself? (Hence the idea of adding forced spay/neuter laws as well)

Or do you think just enforcing current laws better would help enough in these cases?

[Jacosta]

You obviously enjoy constantly arguing and flaming people, have fun :D

It is your responsiblity for certain, and part of that is understanding "control". My last comment is I think you are delusional if you think people are ever 100% in control of another thinking living being. That is dangerous thinking. Being aware that you are NOT 100% in control is more important than flexing your epeen. When I lost control, I held onto the dog (so Iwas aware it could happen). She didn't hurt anyone. You probably would have been so shocked to lose control you would have lost the dogs leash. You should clearly never own animals. No one could ever control how often you attack....that is for sure. :rolleyes: You can't control yourself or your mouth, I fail to see how you could control an animal. (if I get a point, it'll be my first and worth it).

Almost every topic you post in ends up in the volcano. It's a gift I'm sure.

Thanks for effectively killing a topic by making it personal...again. It is an onteresting topic too.
This is like 3 or 4 I've seen you just derail personally in order to stroke your ego. I'm really sorry, but you get to be the first person on my ignore list. :cry: ~wave~

If anyone else is interested, it seems that the bigest issue seems to actually be sex and weather an animal is fixed. Almost all severe and fatal attacks are by sexually intact males. It seems like one of the most important things that can be done is to fix an animal. Males protecting females in heat, and just oddly aggressive behavior for unknown reason. Getting males and females fixed is important.

I guess thatt is one of the big problems with these dog breeds is that a lot of pople have "purebreds", and so they do not want to fix them, because they would be worth less. requiring more animals to be fixed unless you have a breeding permit or something might be a vey helpfull idea. Also would eliminate a lot of these poor unwanted animals that are put to sleep :(

People tend to be against legislation though. Don't you think if it was enforced, it could help?

Actually, my point was not to stroke my ego, but to have a conversation with you regarding dogs and training. Since you've shown that you're unable to discuss things civilly without insulting anyone only goes to show that you're more interested in stroking your own ego at the expense of others.

I have total control over Cocoa and she responds to every command I give. It's because I have her conditioned to me being the pack leader. When she goes to jump up on my brother I command her to stop and sit. She listens and stops what she's doing. Her history is one of abuse as well and she has the scars on her legs from dog bites. Seems that the prior owner tried to make her into a fighting dog and clipped her ears to prevent damage from another dog. I got her from the Humane Society and she's quite happy being with us.

Oh and the reason why topics I talk in end up getting into Volcano is because of other people that cannot discuss things like an adult. They have to stroke their ego and insult me to the point where the post is moved.

[emilyliam]

So uh, why was your infant going to be alone with a pit bull again? They aren't people you hang out with apparently, and its an apartment so there isn't even a yard your child might be playing in where the dog would be present. I'm not really seeing a cause for concern...

[Aroua999]

So uh, why was your infant going to be alone with a pit bull again? They aren't people you hang out with apparently, and its an apartment so there isn't even a yard your child might be playing in where the dog would be present. I'm not really seeing a cause for concern...
A person, adult or child, does not have to be unsupervised to be in danger.

The dog has to go outside to do it's business, and the let's it run around unleashed a bit, though it tends to stay close to his yard. My infant probalby isn't in much danger, but I could be, and the other kids in the neighborhood. It's just that HAVING a child makes you hyper aware of more dangers. This is more of a hypothetical question...well kind of because there still is real danger.

Here are some reasons to be concerned:
[/QUOTE] An 11-year-old boy in Orange County was injured Wednesday night when a pit bull jumped through an open car window and attacked him,[/QUOTE]

http://donoevil.netscape.com/story/2007/02/23/pit-bull-jumps-through-cars-window-attacks-11-year-old

and

http://www.discovervancouver.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=126481

for a lsit of attacks where they have jumped fences, escaped leashes, attacked people on their OWN property, etc. People not even safe inside their own car...lol

Owners are often not very responsible, and that makes people unsafe even in their own homes and cars. :confused:

[emilyliam]

A person, adult or child, does not have to be unsupervised to be in danger.

The dog has to go outside to do it's business, and the let's it run around unleashed a bit, though it tends to stay close to his yard. My infant probalby isn't in much danger, but I could be, and the other kids in the neighborhood. It's just that HAVING a child makes you hyper aware of more dangers. This is more of a hypothetical question...well kind of because there still is real danger.

Here are some reasons to be concerned:
An 11-year-old boy in Orange County was injured Wednesday night when a pit bull jumped through an open car window and attacked him,

http://donoevil.netscape.com/story/2007/02/23/pit-bull-jumps-through-cars-window-attacks-11-year-old

and

http://www.discovervancouver.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=126481

for a lsit of attacks where they have jumped fences, escaped leashes, attacked people on their OWN property, etc. People not even safe inside their own car...lol

Owners are often not very responsible, and that makes people unsafe even in their own homes and cars. :confused:

So I assume your child won't ever be in a car. What with car accidents being the leading accidental cause of death for americans and all. Since you're hypersensitive to such risks...

[Aroua999]

So I assume your child won't ever be in a car. What with car accidents being the leading accidental cause of death for americans and all. Since you're hypersensitive to such risks...
Ahahahaha, or she'll get hit by lightning! That is more common than pitbull attacks too! All pit owners use this illogical logic to defend theirr dogs.

BTW, this defeted my argument about dogs attacking people in their own yards, cars and homes how? by changing the subject again? Good one! How about we talk about DOG attacks, and not car accidents, since this topic is about DOG attacks.

By your sarcastic logic, we should ignore ALL other risks (like the dogs), because cars are more dangerous? That is what you are implying, right? :rolleyes: This is a silly argument.

I guess no one actually wants to talk about the issue of dog attacks, how to maage risks from certain breeds or dogs with a history of bad behavior, dogs that are owned by other people where we cannot control them, or discuss any of the articles or information in them that I included, just make sideways arguments that have nothing to do with it...sigh. I assume those with the sideways arguments and sidetracking have one of these dog breeds, or knows someone close who does? Just curious, I don't expect you to answer if you don't want.

[Aroua999]

So the big question is, if you are against breed specific legislation, how can we better regulate owners, who are ultimately responsible?

Everyone just says blame the owner, not the dog. Ok, I agree, but once thedog has maimed or killed it's a tad late. How do we do something proactive to help prevent bad owners?

Would you be more supportive of harsh liscencing? Like being required to pass a dog training and personality test, or something like that?

What about forced sterilization for all dogs and cats who are not owned by someone with a lisence to breed? As it is the encourage people to sterilize all your pets unless you are a breeder.

Any other ideas that would not punish the dogs breed, but help protect humans AND dogs alike?

[emilyliam]

Ahahahaha, or she'll get hit by lightning! That is more common than pitbull attacks too! All pit owners use this illogical logic to defend theirr dogs.

BTW, this defeted my argument about dogs attacking people in their own yards, cars and homes how? by changing the subject again? Good one! How about we talk about DOG attacks, and not car accidents, since this topic is about DOG attacks.

By your sarcastic logic, we should ignore ALL other risks (like the dogs), because cars are more dangerous? That is what you are implying, right? :rolleyes: This is a silly argument.

I guess no one actually wants to talk about the issue of dog attacks, how to maage risks from certain breeds or dogs with a history of bad behavior, dogs that are owned by other people where we cannot control them, or discuss any of the articles or information in them that I included, just make sideways arguments that have nothing to do with it...sigh. I assume those with the sideways arguments and sidetracking have one of these dog breeds, or knows someone close who does? Just curious, I don't expect you to answer if you don't want.

Nope :) I have a rabbit. If anyone should be afraid of dogs attacking it's a rabbit. But now that you mention it I let a pit bull that had only been pet-socialized for a few months into my house with my rabbit and our cat. How's that? OMG I'm a total pit bull apologist!

You're just making a mountain out of a molehill. That's it. And then when it's pointed out to you that this is just not a big deal you get all self righteous. Those other arguments aren't illogical, they are quite logical attempts to point out to you that THIS IS NOT A BIG RISK. But you in your motherly wisdom just refuse to get over yourself and calm down. You've CLEARLY already decided this is a risk to your child and you're obviously not interested in a real discussion. You just want validation for your fears. THAT is what's illogical here.

[Aroua999]

Nope :) I have a rabbit. If anyone should be afraid of dogs attacking it's a rabbit. But now that you mention it I let a pit bull that had only been pet-socialized for a few months into my house with my rabbit and our cat. How's that? OMG I'm a total pit bull apologist!

You're just making a mountain out of a molehill. That's it. And then when it's pointed out to you that this is just not a big deal you get all self righteous. Those other arguments aren't illogical, they are quite logical attempts to point out to you that THIS IS NOT A BIG RISK. But you in your motherly wisdom just refuse to get over yourself and calm down. You've CLEARLY already decided this is a risk to your child and you're obviously not interested in a real discussion. You just want validation for your fears. THAT is what's illogical here.
Ok, the rabbit thing made me LOL :D I love rabbits.

Actually, I am interested in the discussion. My husband is way more worried about this neighbor dog than I am, personally. I am just stating an argument that he has presented to me, and wondering how other people feel about it. He actually is feeling like all of these dogs should be banned. I think that is ridiculous, and that all breeds and owners should be regulated to some extent for the safety of ALL dog breeds and people.

You are correct, and it is a smaller risk than many others around. But having one in my own front yard makes it bigger risk than some hypothetical dog I have never seen.

I am not proposing to have all dogs put to sleep, nor for everyone to agree with me. You have not even given me your personal view on the subject, which I would be interested in. Well, unless you view is it isn't a big risk, who cares, in which case, why are you here arguing? lol. I guess only HUGE issues are worth having an opinion on :p

Still, since I am aware of this dog, the risk is lowered to some extent. I still think it is a facinating issue that some people get very passionate over! But again, no one since page one seems to want to debate the actual issue :( (breed vs owners and what can we do about it if anything?), but instead it gets like the gun argument. People take strong stands one way or the other. I guess since it is such a small risk, I should just ignore it.....

Well, I think we have done this topic to death. Or at least determined the topic is not as interesting to most people as it was to me :D Ah well. I'll drop it now and stick to other peoples threads that are WAY more interesting and important, like last poster wins, Rofl. Seriously, there are lots of good discussions here, I'm sorry I started one that turned out to suck :(

[DCpunk]

Ok, you were looking for some real discussion, so here goes:



And, specifically, are their attacks more likely to be severe?

We have a neighbor who explained to our landlord that all pit bull stats are just media hype, and pit bulls are no more likely to bite or be involved in a fatal attacks than any other breed. Since we are about to have a little one around, I decided to research it. All "official" research I can find indicated pitbulls and dogs with pitbull characteristics, along with rotweilers and wolf cross breeds ARE more likely to attack and main/kill than other dogs per capita.
Here is a CDC report from 1989 to 1997
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
Here is a compilation of all US and canadian dog attacks by breed from 1982 to 2006:
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf[/quote]

These two reports don't agree at all. The one from the CDC says that there were only 66 fatalities attributed to Pit Bulls between 1979 and 1997. It also goes on to state (if you read the footnotes) that for many of those years that police/guard dogs are included in that number, so the numbers don't even really mean all that much. The second report that is from some completely unknown source states that there were 1110 fatalities/maimings by Pit Bulls between 1982 and 2003. I'm going to go out on a limb here (sarcasm) and say that the CDC reports were much more accurate. If that is truly the case, your child has almost no chance of being killed by a Pit Bull. Your child has a much greater chance of dying from SIDS, abuse, or in a car accident. Now, I know you don't like that line of reasoning, but it makes complete sense: Why are you having a dicussion about something that has such an extremely low chance of occuring, but not the things that are much more likely? It just plain old doesn't make sense. If your neighbor doesn't keep his dog on a leash, then look up leash laws in your area and take whatever action is appropriate.

So all the defense I have found of the breed is based on a few points:

1) Irresponsible owners. Thses types of people are drawn to "dangerous" dog breeds, making the breed more likely to bite.

Most dog owners are irresonpsible period. Most people don't take their dogs out to run around even close to as often as they should. Doing so would allow the dogs to blow off steam and energy (especially male dogs that aren't fixed). Not doing so creates a grumpy, unpredictable dog. This is true of everything from Chihuahuas (one of the most vicious, bad tempered dogs in the world) to Great Danes. As well, most dog owners don't actually train their dogs. They get them, feed them, take them out to do their business (sometimes), and otherwise pretty much ignore them. They get dogs just because it's what they think they're supposed to do to be "normal".

So, no, irresponsible owners aren't attracted to more "dangerous" dog breeds.

2) It's the victims fault. The people attacked are often children who have bad parents. These children, average age 8, provoked the dog before it attacked. Also adults who ignore the warning signs of a dog about to attack.
(My thoughts here are children are doing this to ALL dog breeds. This effect should be global, not breed specific, and so I think it's a null argument).

Often, it is most definitely the victims fault. People, in general, have no idea how to approach a dog or how to treat a dog. Children of crap parents (which is most parents) are the worst offenders. You approach a dog with your hand out, palm up, and let him/her sniff it until they're happy. You don't make sudden moves, and you don't get your face close to theirs. You don't bare your teeth at a dog (and yes, dogs can very well interepret a big toothy grin as baring your teeth).

I'm willing to be that most dog attacks are directly attritubted to this combined with owners who have non idea how to care for a dog. Especially a breed as rambunctious as a Pit Bull.

3) misidentification of breed. This one puzzles me a bit. Would this not also happen with other dog breeds?

This needs more explanation to answer.

4) More people are struck by lightining, more children killed by malfunctioning cribs, etc, than are killed by these dogs. (I hate this type of argument whenever it is applied to any argument. Just because more people become addicted to Benzos than SSRI's does not mean SSRI's are non-addicitive, It's an spin thing, and if taken to far becomes a true logical fallacy).

Your analogy regarding Benzos and SSRIs doesn't work here. No one is claiming that Pit Bulls don't attack and kill people. What they ARE claiming is that it is much, much less likely to occur than a more "natural" child death, so why the hell are you (figurative you) freaking out about it? Why aren't you campaigning for more SIDS research?

I'll tell you why I think this is: it's a control issue. You feel you can control the dog situation, so you jump on it. You can't control the SIDS issue, so you don't. This makes people who freak out about dog breeds like this control freaks, and who likes a control freak?

There are no stats that refute either of the above links, just defending why it is so.

How could there be? No serious research is done into why the dogs attack. The only legal care is that dogs DO attack from time to time, and the data is easily organziable.

[emilyliam]

The reason people are getting so defensive is that you have taken the stance that just by being present your neighbors and their dog are a menace, even though they have given you no reason to think they are such. What's more, you have come to a public forum and proclaimed them a menace, so much of one in fact that even though your child will likely never come in close contact with the dog you still need to assert its danger. Basically you have chosen the "guilty until proven innocent" stance and that's insulting. Its insulting to pretty much all dog owners.
Obviously being concerned about your children is good, but being concerned to the point of distraction about insignificant risks doesn't help you or your child.

[Aroua999]

Ok, you were looking for some real discussion, so here goes:
first, let me say these are great points! And thanks for the reasonable arguments and good information! :)
Actually, since this seeems to be confusing people a lot, let me start by saying, I am having this discussion because of the misinformation the dog owner gave our landlord. (He told her the myth about lock jaws, which made us wonder how much he actually knew about his dog). I was curious how factual the stats the landlord relayed to us were, and so I looked them up. I thought they were very interesting, and wanted to share and discuss. considering the amount of misinformation out there, I really just thought it was interesting. I think it's funny that everyone thinks I'm like out to get all pitbulls or something. I'm just pointing out the stats and WHY I became aware of them. Take them how you will :D I have no intention of doing anything beyond this discussion and educating myself, and being more aware and alert.


These two reports don't agree at all. (I think you accidently misread the numbers in the second report) The one from the CDC says that there were only 66 fatalities attributed to Pit Bulls between 1979 and 1997. It also goes on to state (if you read the footnotes) that for many of those years that police/guard dogs are included in that number, so the numbers don't even really mean all that much. The second report that is from some completely unknown source states that there were 1110 fatalities/maimings (no, 1110 injuries, even if that was a dog knocking over someione who later died from a broken hip) It actually only lists 104 fatalities in the US and Canada over a longer period 25 years) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that sounds like it matches the CDC pretty well. by Pit Bulls between 1982 and 2003 (2006). I'm going to go out on a limb here (sarcasm) and say that the CDC reports were much more accurate. If that is truly the case, your child has almost no chance of being killed by a Pit Bull. Your child has a much greater chance of dying from SIDS, abuse, or in a car accident. Now, I know you don't like that line of reasoning, but it makes complete sense: Why are you having a dicussion about something that has such an extremely low chance of occuring, but not the things that are much more likely? It just plain old doesn't make sense. If your neighbor doesn't keep his dog on a leash, then look up leash laws in your area and take whatever action is appropriate.Ok, he's not breaking any leash laws as far as I can discover. Also, one report (CDC) is for deaths only over 20 years, and the other is for all attacks reported that caused ANY bodily harm, from smallest bite to death, in USA and Canada both (so 2 countried, not one) over a 25 year period (so 5 years longer), so they are including completely different staticstics. They don't disagree, they are reporting differents stats. Since the US + Cananda stats only lists 104 DEATHS over 25 years in 2 countires, I rather think it looks like they match up pretty well.
Also, as for the completely unkown sourse, it states that is is compiled by The editor of Animal People, a well know animal rights activist ( so not someone with an interst in hating on dogs, quite the oposite). It goes on to point out that these figures are form law enforcement and animal control, and the ONLY numbers listed were those were breed was clear. If breed was unclear, they were not included in the study. Also, in this case, police dogs et el are excluded. This is all just FYI.
Most dog owners are irresonpsible period. That is true!Most people don't take their dogs out to run around even close to as often as they should. Doing so would allow the dogs to blow off steam and energy (especially male dogs that aren't fixed). Not doing so creates a grumpy, unpredictable dog. This is true of everything from Chihuahuas (one of the most vicious, bad tempered dogs in the world) to Great Danes. As well, most dog owners don't actually train their dogs. They get them, feed them, take them out to do their business (sometimes), and otherwise pretty much ignore them. They get dogs just because it's what they think they're supposed to do to be "normal".
Yes, I agree with this whole point. I guess there isn't much to be done here. I just find it sad for the humand AND the dogs involved :(

So, no, irresponsible owners aren't attracted to more "dangerous" dog breeds.
People on both sides of the issue tend to agree that bad owners are a big part of the problem.
Ok, Irresponsible was the wrong word on my part. It's the extremests (people who are more than irresponsible, people with mental issues, who train their dogs to BE violent). These type are of course drawn to a dog that is thought of as dangerous, weather it is or not, they then breed them and train them til they ARE dangerous. Ok, did that make more sense? These abused and specially trained dogs who are owned by the farthest extreme of humanity are the ones causing issues most of the time, not normal families with normal dogs, usually.


Often, it is most definitely the victims fault. People, in general, have no idea how to approach a dog or how to treat a dog. Children of crap parents (which is most parents) are the worst offenders. You approach a dog with your hand out, palm up, and let him/her sniff it until they're happy. You don't make sudden moves, and you don't get your face close to theirs. You don't bare your teeth at a dog (and yes, dogs can very well interepret a big toothy grin as baring your teeth).

I'm willing to be that most dog attacks are directly attritubted to this combined with owners who have non idea how to care for a dog. Especially a breed as rambunctious as a Pit Bull.
Agreed that is the case much of the time.



This needs more explanation to answer.



Your analogy regarding Benzos and SSRIs doesn't work here. No one is claiming that Pit Bulls don't attack and kill people. What they ARE claiming is that it is much, much less likely to occur than a more "natural" child death, so why the hell are you (figurative you) freaking out about it? Why aren't you campaigning for more SIDS research?

I'll tell you why I think this is: it's a control issue. You feel you can control the dog situation, so you jump on it. You can't control the SIDS issue, so you don't. This makes people who freak out about dog breeds like this control freaks, and who likes a control freak?
I think this is a big point. I gues the argument here is weather it IS a big issue or not. Different people pick different battles to figh. I have no reason to actually fight this battle for real, as I don't have anything against the guy or his dog. I just wanted some different perspectives on it. (Not bashing, but discussion) Which this is doing, ty :)

How could there be? No serious research is done into why the dogs attack. The only legal care is that dogs DO attack from time to time, and the data is easily organziable.
Now this should be done, since overall dog attacks are quite common. I wonder why we, a people who own more dogs per capita than any other country in the world, also just ignore a lot of dog reasearch and safety, even for the animals themselves?

Anyway, good points, thanks for the civil discussion of the actual issue, I really do appreciate it, and have more info to present to my husband, which was my goal.

There still is evidence that certain breeds are more dangerous, but there really isn't much a person can do except be aware of safety with all dogs and teaching kids the right way to behave around them. At least, that is what it seems like you are suggesting, and that seems like a reasonable suggestion.

[Lord_Phoenix]

Now this should be done, since overall dog attacks are quite common. I wonder why we, a people who own more dogs per capita than any other country in the world, also just ignore a lot of dog reasearch and safety, even for the animals themselves?

Actually, according to those reports, it's very uncommon to be attacked by a dog. 1110 injuries over a 24 year period in two countries with a combined population of ~333,000,000 people (300mil USA, 33mil Canada give or take over the years) works out to be 46.25 attacks a year, with a 1/7,200,000 I think chance of being attacked by a dog each year.

[Aroua999]

Actually, according to those reports, it's very uncommon to be attacked by a dog. 1110 injuries over a 24 year period in two countries with a combined population of ~333,000,000 people (300mil USA, 33mil Canada give or take over the years) works out to be 46.25 attacks a year, with a 1/7,200,000 I think chance of being attacked by a dog each year.
Seriously, is this report THAT hard to read??
The 1110 is JUST pitbull terriors that could be 100% identified by reliable animal experts. It's a drop in the bucket.
The full number on that report was 2209 for all dogs. And that is only attacks that can be attributed to specific breeds by said animal experts. (I.E. Includes no mutts and unidentifiable mixed breeds or breeds identified by laymen...which would be most attacks as cops and victims do the identifying).
I think that chart must be hard to read, as people keep getting the wrong numbers off it.

Here is the CDC report on overall dog attacks that were reported and required any medical care (from any type of dog).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm

In 1994, the most recent year for which published data are available, an estimated 4.7 million dog bites occurred in the United States, and approximately 799,700 persons required medical care ~snip~(rate: 129.3 per 100,000 population) estimated for 2001. ~snip~ And an estimated 50 percent of Americans will be bitten in their lifetimes

So, dog bites are quite common, though not as common as say....car accidents, granted. They are certainly something we should educate our kids and ourselves about, in order to behave properly around dogs. The people here who argue pit bull specific bites and me making a mountain out of a molehill may have a point, but dog bites overall? No, those are very common.

Now, I know someone is going to say 1110 out of 800k isn't very high for pit bulls So let's look at what this report that everyone keeps misquoting actually says.
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

1) This report only includes BREED SPECIFIC data, it does not cover all bites by all dogs with no verifiable breed.
2) it only includes attacks where the breed was identified by a reliable and kowlegable person, such as Animal control or a dog trainer. This is to remdy the common "Breed misidentification" complaint, a valid complaint btw. So it includes only the most valid data.
3) Hence it only counts 2209 attacks out of a the 4.7mil(only 100% verifyable data on breeds).
4) So this chart does not cover all 4.7 million attacks, or 800k hospitilizations, it is a breed specific sample of 2209 attacks, of which approximately half were perpetrated by pitbulls.

Anyway, I think I am just repeating myself now, and pissing people off which is not my intention at all, as that is no fun for anyone. Thanks to those for the good discussion though, I enjoyed those parts :D

[Athiven]

One more thing to be careful that i don't think has been told yet. Dogs are like humans and when getting old, they may get pain in legs, back, etc because of arthritis, etc, things that you may not even know because dogs can't talk to tell it hurts and where. Kids playing with them and not having been warned might just hurt them not even aware of it thinking they just pat them. In such a case even the kindest dog might just bite instinctively in reaction to pain.

[Aroua999]

One more thing to be careful that i don't think has been told yet. Dogs are like humans and when getting old, they may get pain in legs, back, etc because of arthritis, etc, things that you may not even know because dogs can't talk to tell it hurts and where. Kids playing with them and not having been warned might just hurt them not even aware of it thinking they just pat them. In such a case even the kindest dog might just bite instinctively in reaction to pain.
Yeah, that is sad to think of, but a very good point! There are lots of breeds that get bad cronic hip pain, and all can get achy with age. We used to get pain meds for our lab when she got older. It got hard for her to stand up in the morning, poor thing :( Fortunately she slept inside so the cold didn't bother her too much.

Probably a lot of minor nips and bites are exactly things like this, or other kinds of irritations and startles. Excellent point :)

Yeah, sometimes we all, dogs or humans, just have rotten days :p

[DCpunk]

(no, 1110 injuries, even if that was a dog knocking over someione who later died from a broken hip) It actually only lists 104 fatalities in the US and Canada over a longer period 25 years) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that sounds like it matches the CDC pretty well.

In 7 years there were an extra 40 fatalities? That's almost double the rate of fatalities reported by the CDC. Again, I'm going to stick with the CDC numbers. I'm just not buying that much of a disparity.

I also want to note this from the other CDC report you posted:

In 2001, an estimated 368,245 persons were treated for dog bite--related injuries (rate: 129.3 per 100,000 population) (Table). The injury rate was highest for children aged 5--9 years and decreased with increasing age. Approximately 154,625 (42.0%) dog bites occurred among children aged <14 years; the rate was significantly higher for boys (293.2 per 100,000 population) than for girls (216.7) (p = 0.037) (Figure 1).

Teach your kid not to be an a$$hole, and you shouldn't have issues. :)

Furthermore, it's important to note that this same study clearly stated that a big part of fixing this issue is teaching children how to behave around/with strange dogs, and teaching pet owners to be more responsible, or in some cases, forcing them to be through litigation. which is precisely what most people here have said. :)

[Atoyota]

Hey Bull Dog! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fOs2Snt62U)

[DCpunk]

Hey Bull Dog! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fOs2Snt62U)

Sheepdog
Standing in the rain,
Bullfrog
Doing it again
Some think that happinness is measured out in years
You don't know what it's like to listen to your fears

Child-like
No one understands,
Jack knife
In your sweaty hands,
Some think that happiness is measured out in miles
What makes you think you're something special when you smile

You can talk to me, if you're lonely you can talk to me

Big man
Walking in the park
Whigwam
Frightened of the dark
Some think that happiness is measured out in you
You think you know me but you haven't got a clue

You can talk to me, if you're lonely you can talk to me

[Aroua999]

Furthermore, it's important to note that this same study clearly stated that a big part of fixing this issue is teaching children how to behave around/with strange dogs, and teaching pet owners to be more responsible, or in some cases, forcing them to be through litigation. which is precisely what most people here have said. :)
Yes, that is precisely what I've said too, from my very first posted opinion! Which is in my second post I think (the first was just information to discuss). 2 posts back I said education was the obvious issue, and Lord Phoenix said dog bites were so rare even education was overracting. I just can't win :D Apparently making pet owners more responsible (like having them take classes, getting their pets fixed, or having some of them get special licenses proving their knowlage) offended ALL dog owners, according to someone earlier. I have been saying this ALL ALONG! Sorry, I'm upset, it seems that NO ONE CAN READ! go back and look at my second posts, my third, my 5th, they all agree with your whole freaking paragraph! It is what I suggested from the very get go.

Anyway, I agree! I will state it for the 6th time this thread. More responsibility on the pet owners, and education for eveyone is the best thing we can do!

Ok, now that I've agreed for like the 100th time, can people stop acting like I hate dogs?

In 7 years there were an extra 40 fatalities? That's almost double the rate of fatalities reported by the CDC. Again, I'm going to stick with the CDC numbers. I'm just not buying that much of a disparity.
For Canada too! Omg, for the last time, this report doesn't include police dogs, but it includes a WHOLE OTHER COUNTRY, and only includes dogs identified by experts only. IT DOES NOT DISAGREE< IT IS SIMPLY DIFFERENT STATS.

I'm just correcting facts :p I don't care anymore, again, I agree with the conclusions!! but GD dude, please get the facts straight before you misquote them AGAIN!

Ok, again, all this correcting is making me look like I am pasionate about this issue. I am just pasionate about accuracy. I just thought they were interesting facts. The more You guys misquote this, the worse I look. I'm tired of being a bitch in this thread, so I'll just say again, I AGREE that we all need to be more educated, and I'm outa here, I'm tired of reading misquotes over and over and over.

P.S. I'm sorry, I am just having a bad day and this realy is frustrating. Saying the same things (stats and opinion wise) for 4 pages, while people act like I meant something other than what I said, then have my own opinios thrown back at me, it is just stupid. I'm tired of repeating myself. I'm going to find a fun thread, and ditch my own, mwahahahaaha! lol

[Aroua999]

Post #1, I stated no opinion, I asked this question for open discussion:
So, this is kind of like the gun issue. Do dogs kill people or do bad owners kill people?

Post #2 in favor of owner responsibility, I stated:
I really think all dangerous breeds, not just pit bulls/Rots, should only be owned by licensed owners. I think this would help a lot.

Post #3, agreeing with owner responsibility:
I do think owners are more to blame thatn the dogs. The dogs can't help how they are bred. Fact is they were bred to fight and kill other animals though. Hence the idea of licensing seems a good one.

The next 2 posts I was neutral, not stating an opinion either way, as I was mostly arguing over one personal incident withone person, and NOT the dog issue.

Post #6 in favor of owners getting their dogs fixed!
I guess thatt is one of the big problems with these dog breeds is that a lot of pople have "purebreds", and so they do not want to fix them, because they would be worth less. requiring more animals to be fixed unless you have a breeding permit or something might be a vey helpfull idea. Also would eliminate a lot of these poor unwanted animals that are put to sleep.
People tend to be against legislation though. Don't you think if it was enforced, it could help?

Post # 7, again in favor of forcing responsibility on stupid owners. Bad wording on my part here here, as forcing the owners to spay/neuter DOES punish the breed, but it's still an owner issue.
Also, although people in many states need a licence for certain dangerous breeds now, and owners are being held more responsible after the fact, it clearly isn't working. I understand the whole "punish the deed not the breed" idea and sympathize, but if we can't control the stupidity of owners, what other choice is there but controlling the breed itself? (Hence the idea of adding forced spay/neuter laws as well)

Psot #9: Here I get very specific:
So the big question is, if you are against breed specific legislation, how can we better regulate owners, who are ultimately responsible?

Everyone just says blame the owner, not the dog. Ok, I agree, but once the dog has maimed or killed it's a tad late. How do we do something proactive to help prevent bad owners?

Would you be more supportive of harsh liscencing? Like being required to pass a dog training and personality test, or something like that?

What about forced sterilization for all dogs and cats who are not owned by someone with a lisence to breed? As it is the encourage people to sterilize all your pets unless you are a breeder.

Any other ideas that would not punish the dogs breed, but help protect humans AND dogs alike?

Post #11 I also agreed with you that is was the victims fault in many cases.
Most dog owners are irresonpsible period. That is true!
There still is evidence that certain breeds are more dangerous, but there really isn't much a person can do except be aware of safety with all dogs and teaching kids the right way to behave around them. At least, that is what it seems like you are suggesting, and that seems like a reasonable suggestion.


So anyway, I just wanted to point out that I have been agreeing with that in every post. I don't know how my posts were construed to be something else, or if these posts just were not read. There, now I'm done.

[Slide]

All these stats are rubbish, the question is how many people and particularly small people that are exposed to specific breeds get mauled. Children tend to provoke animals, be they dogs or cats - some breeds have stronger fighting instincts than others.

Cats are more likely to flip out and fight back than most dogs, but they are small enough that it doesn't usually cause any real damage, and they will normally scratch once or twice, maybe bite then run. Pitbulls if trained correctly are very even tempered, loyal and patient dogs - but if they aren't trained correctly the instinct they have for mauling can take over, and when it does it causes a lot more damage because of the way they are built.

[DCpunk]

[U][I][B]Yes, that is precisely what I've said too, *snip*


Actually, what it makes you look like is someone purposefully posting dubious information in an attempt to support an argument.

[sleipnira]

According to police, Silva was attempting to feed the dogs, a German shepherd and a Doberman pinscher, as she had done every morning.

"We just don't see dogs that are great family dogs that end up killing someone. I mean, that just doesn't happen. So, something probably provoked the dogs," said Wilbert Reid, owner of ReidSan Kennel & Training Center.

It may never be known what caused the dogs to attack. However, making sure they've been trained early can sometimes prevent these incidents from happening.

"What I found is that people [who] were never honest with their dogs when they were very young, or they pampered their dogs, or they didn't expose their dogs... rarely ever does a trained dog bite his owner because the dog understands that the owner is the one that's in charge," said Reid.

Reid has been training dogs for nearly 40 years and argues that responsibility for most dog attacks usually rests with the owner.

"When dogs are socialized and trained, you end up having a very good member of the family. When you don't do those things, then the unexpected, which is somewhat in the back of your mind expected, will happen," said Reid.


http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/13394254/detail.html?subid=22105263&qs=1;bp=t

If you're ever in a situation where you're confronted by an aggressive dog, experts advise doing the following:

First, stand still and keep your arms close to your body. Also, try to shove something in the dog's mouth if possible. If you've fallen, roll up into a ball and protect your head with your arms and hands.

[sleipnira]

I think the insurance dog owners who have dogs that have bitten/attacked before are required to carry is a good idea

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/states-crack-down-on-dangerous-dogs/20070723072609990002

[sleipnira]

This story is about a breed you don't hear about attacking often..

This is so sad

http://www.wsmv.com/news/13746954/detail.html

[Atoyota]

odd there was no one with him, or that they did'nt at least have a baby moniter on. Not too sure of all the circumstances, but I guess its a good lesson for others never to be too careful leaving your infant alone with a strange dog or dogs (even though they may be lovable).

Yeah its sad...

[sleipnira]

I hope they find good homes

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15140648/detail.html