Any use for these dogs anymore?

[Xameil]

well no doubt the dog's owner has a lot to do with it.

I currently have a Golden Retriever. He has absolutely no interest in anything from the above. A rabbit could bounce across our yard and go unnoticed. However... if you pick up a tennis ball, the dog becomes possessed. It's like he has gone mad... he starts drooling, locked in a stance, BEGGING you to throw that tennis ball. Why? So he can bring it back to you and do it again. I never taught him how to do any of this... he brought me things from the time he was a puppy... always with a gentle grip so as not to mark / damage anything in his mouth.

He is a Golden Retriever being a Golden Retriever.

.

I had a golden...I threw a ball, and it just looked at me with a blank stare. I think you got lucky. Not all Goldens know from birth to fetch. My friends bred Bull Mastifs? what is their "purpose". If it's to be mean, they totally don't fit the description. The only danger they cause is you getting bowled over by them when they run to you to pet them.

I have known a few people who have had rotties, and they are the friendliest dogs. Protective of their "master" and his family though. But aren't most dogs?

[AdamB]

It just seems to me that there are SO MANY great breeds of dogs to choose from, over 500 from what I understand. Why do people even NEED the option of getting the ONE breed of dog that has shown the highest propensity for aggression ending in death? You've said it right, the wrong people are getting these dogs. But it seems that the wrong people are drawn to these dogs and they are endangering people so much that it far outweighs the benefits gained by being able to own ONE PARTICULAR breed of dog, when there are 500 other breeds to choose from.

You keep talking about one particular breed of dog - which one would that be?

German Shepards, at the height of their popularity in the country, accounted for more fatal dog attacks than any other breed.

Same with Dobermans.

Same with Rotties.

Oh, and "pit bull" is not one specific breed - its a label applied to the following:

American Pit Bull Terrier

American Staffordshire Terrier

Staffordshire Terrier

Irish Staffordshire Terrier

Bull Terrier

And generally any stocky, strong built, broad muzzled dogs, which have included boxers, labs, mixed breeds, and others, including, in one reported case, a jack russel terrier.

You will also, on your quest to eliminate any dog that is.....more of a potential threat because of breeding, temperment, breed history, or has a recorded history of fatal/serious dog attacks, need to include other breeds. Better safe than sorry, right?

American Bulldog (no, not the short little guys)

Dogo Argentino

Akita

Great Dane

Neapolitan Mastiff (which can be aggressive if not trained, etc).

Black Russian Terrier (hey, military designed dog that includes Rottie and Giant Schanuzer)

Chow

Shar Pei

Cane Corso

Presna

Tosa Inu (Japanese mastiff bred for dog fighting)

Boston Terrier (oh, sure, they are all sweet now, but they were designed and bred for dog fighting....gotta keep an eye on them! get it...keep an eye on them....oh, nevermind...)

We won't, just for the sake of argument, include breeds that have shown a tendacy to injure and/or kill small children, like dachsunds, ****ers, jack russel terriers, and pomerians.

Oh, as far as 500 other breeds - the UKC (which recognizes more breeds than the AKC) recognizes 300, many of them duplicate (wire-hired dachsunds are separate from long-harded dachsunds, etc). Many of the 300 breeds are also rare in the US. Anyone here actually meet an owner of a Polish Owczarek Nizinny?

[AdamB]

How did the topic get changed to dog bites? I thought the topic was deaths. Dog bites heal and you get a good story (I have 2). Being dead doesnt heal so good.

Im pretty sure the statistics on the deaths are kept pretty well. I doubt many of them go unreported.

Its called discussing a second issue, which is problems with regulation, that was brought up in an earlier post.

Edit:

Oh, and yes, dog fatalities are generally well kept, hence the reason I keep bringing up trends dating abck to the 1960s. Also, its fun to see how well fatal dog attacks by pit bulls are reported vs. other breeds. A good example is a case where a man was listed as being a dog attack victim - actually he was climbing into a stranger's back yard, got chased by the owner's pit, ran into the street and was hit by a van.

[AdamB]

I had a golden...I threw a ball, and it just looked at me with a blank stare. I think you got lucky. Not all Goldens know from birth to fetch. My friends bred Bull Mastifs? what is their "purpose". If it's to be mean, they totally don't fit the description. The only danger they cause is you getting bowled over by them when they run to you to pet them.

I have known a few people who have had rotties, and they are the friendliest dogs. Protective of their "master" and his family though. But aren't most dogs?

Hey! Bullmastiffs are excellent for getting their owners off their butts and doing house cleaning - you can only have so much drool on your ceiling before you have to do some house work

Actually, bullies are excellent protection dogs in that they will show no hesitation to go after a threat, and seem to have a 6th sense when it comes to judging people and potential threats, yet it is not in their nature to bite, so they will just corner/prohibit the movement of said threat.

Or at least that is what I have been told. My house was robbed a few years ago and my bully slept through it. :doh:

[Huly]

Do you know why these 'same people' have never decided that they want 'mad-dog golden retrievers?'

Simple. Because it would take 10,000 times the energy to make a mad-dog golden retriever as it would a German shephard, Doberman, Rottweiler, or Pit.

The Reason?

Those dogs have hundreds of years worth of breeding, and already have tendancies towards aggression. That was what they were bred for.

You can tell us that the owners are ultimately responsible and I'll believe you, but you CAN NEVER lump all 'big dog' breeds into the same category with the same propensity for aggression.

Sorry, but a mad dog Newfy or a mad dog Golden would have to be altered so much, it probably wouldn't even resemble the breed, and would take an incredibly long period of time.

Actually that is happening at a high rate lately due to backyard breeders, puppy mills, and inbreeding. These situations cause not on health concerns but temperament and personality issues.

[AdamB]

Actually that is happening at a high rate lately due to backyard breeders, puppy mills, and inbreeding. These situations cause not on health concerns but temperament and personality issues.

Some of the most aggressive dogs I have ever run into have been Dalmations and labs. And it never fails...when I ask the owners about the dog, its always "Oh, there was this guy down at the flea market selling them for 50.00" or similar.

Edit:

Off topic, but anyone notice that every time there is a "pit bull" thread, it hits 15+ pages, and yet not one "damn liberal/conservative" comment...whats wrong with us?!

[PleaseBlitz]

You keep talking about one particular breed of dog - which one would that be?

German Shepards, at the height of their popularity in the country, accounted for more fatal dog attacks than any other breed.

Same with Dobermans.

Same with Rotties.

Show me. I think you are just making that up. Seriously, show me.

Oh, and "pit bull" is not one specific breed - its a label applied to the following:

American Pit Bull Terrier

American Staffordshire Terrier

Staffordshire Terrier

Irish Staffordshire Terrier

Bull Terrier

And generally any stocky, strong built, broad muzzled dogs, which have included boxers, labs, mixed breeds, and others, including, in one reported case, a jack russel terrier.

I doubt seriously that labs and jack russels are confused as pit bulls. But yes, those dogs you listed, the ones with the ability and inclination to maul people on the regular.....those are the ones I am talking about. Also completely off topic and clouding the main issue.

You will also, on your quest to eliminate any dog that is.....more of a potential threat because of breeding, temperment, breed history, or has a recorded history of fatal/serious dog attacks, need to include other breeds. Better safe than sorry, right?

American Bulldog (no, not the short little guys)

Dogo Argentino

Akita

Great Dane

Neapolitan Mastiff (which can be aggressive if not trained, etc).

Black Russian Terrier (hey, military designed dog that includes Rottie and Giant Schanuzer)

Chow

Shar Pei

Cane Corso

Presna

Tosa Inu (Japanese mastiff bred for dog fighting)

Boston Terrier (oh, sure, they are all sweet now, but they were designed and bred for dog fighting....gotta keep an eye on them! get it...keep an eye on them....oh, nevermind...)

We won't, just for the sake of argument, not include breeds that have shown a tendacy to injure and/or kill small children, like dachsunds, ****ers, jack russel terriers, and pomerians.

Alright, Please try to twist words a little more.

Funny I didnt see those breeds as accounting for 3/4 of all deaths related to dogs. So no, i have no problem with them. Just the ones that kill an inordinate amount of people, THOSE are the ones that I have a problem with. Your disregard for human life, quite frankly, is kinda sick.

Oh, as far as 500 other breeds - the UKC (which recognizes more breeds than the AKC) recognizes 300, many of them duplicate (wire-hired dachsunds are separate from long-harded dachsunds, etc). Many of the 300 breeds are also rare in the US. Anyone here actually meet an owner of a Polish Owczarek Nizinny?

Again, the number has little corelation to the actually arguement, and you know it. The point is: with so many choices of dogs, why the hell does someone pick the MOST DANGEROUS ONE? So out of 300 or whatever different breeds of dogs, you cant find one that you like that doent kill people at the rate that Pit Bulls do? You have to have this one specific dog? Why? I keep asking, no one anwers, you just nitpick at semantics.

BTW the FCI recognizes 400. http://www.thebreedsofdogs.com/

[Predicto]

Let's just stick to discussion of one breed, the American Pit Bull Terrier.

[Huly]

I found this pretty interesting!

Dog Attacks and Pit Bulls

A Closer Look

It should be noted that statistics regarding dog bites, both fatal and non-fatal, are difficult to come by. The most recent data available in many areas of the subject comes from 1997-1998. This must be kept in mind throughout this discussion.

With the exception of dog fighting, this is one of the most depressing topics I have researched to date. Dog attacks/bites, though they are almost always preventable, are surprisingly common. Victims of more violent attacks are frequently left not only with physical scars but also severe mental trauma. Yet, despite the constant presence of dogs in our lives and environment, the majority of citizens are uneducated about dog behavior and ignorant of the steps necessary to reduce the risk of bites/attacks. Dog owners frequently adopt a “not my dog” attitude, and parents fail to teach their children how to act around dogs. Lack of awareness, education, and responsibility results in rising dog bite rates every year.

But first, let’s talk about pit bulls – the breed-type taking the heat for this national crisis.

Fatal Dog Attacks – Where it all begins

*These statistics cover a twenty-year period from 1979 to 1998 and no further, due to lack of data.

In 1997-1998 there were a total of 27 deaths across the nation from dog bites. During these two years, Rottweilers and Rottweiler crossbreeds were responsible for 12 of these deaths (44.4%), and pit bull-type dogs were involved in 6 (22.2%). These two breeds account for approximately 67% of all dog-bite related fatalities in 1997-1998. (1)

Over a twenty-year period (1979 – 1998), the total of pit-bull related deaths equals 66 (28%), the highest percentage compared to other breeds. Since 1993, however, Rottweilers have consistently been involved in more deaths than any other breed. (1)

From this data it could be inferred that pit bulls (and Rottweilers, but they are not our focus here) are more dangerous and deadly than most other breeds of dogs, and indeed, most allegations to that effect are based on these very statistics. However, these statistics are almost always misused, distorted, and misunderstood. The limitations of this data are such that they are generally quite useless, especially when determining the relative danger of any one breed versus other breeds.

Problems With Fatal Attack Statistics

There are no conclusions we can make about the numbers given above, save perhaps the vague statement, “These might be the dog breeds that may have killed X people in years Y-Z.” There are a great many questions, however, that this statement cannot answer.

The two most pressing questions when viewing this data are, “Who determines the breed involved, and what is a pit bull-type dog?” This is a common problem. Realize that the data for the fatal dog attacks quoted above was collected from news media and the Humane Society of the United States. (1) Therefore, the identification of the various breeds involved rests heavily upon eyewitness accounts. It is often the case that even dog breed “experts” (i.e. breeders, animal control officers, vets, etc.) may have difficulty identifying a dog’s breed; therefore, an eyewitness or a news reporter will be even less reliable in their identification. In the case of mixed dogs, the identification gets even more difficult. In addition, the media tends to focus on pit bulls when they are responsible for dog attacks (fatal or non), so it’s possible they are overrepresented in the data.

Even assuming the identification of the dog is correct, we must still establish what constitutes a “pit bull”. “Pit bull” is an extremely vague term that could include several breeds. The American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the American Bulldog all share similar appearance and history. Some people also consider the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier, and even English Bulldogs “pit bulls”. If these breeds are all thrown together as “pit bull-type”, you are suddenly increasing the odds that a “pit bull-type” dog will be involved in a fatal attack.

This brings us to yet another point. There is no way to evaluate exactly how likely a breed will bite/kill because we have no total breed population data. This is important information when assessing risk.

Let’s say you are holding a raffle ticket. Nine other people entered the raffle, and only one ticket will win. Your chances of winning are one out of ten (10%). This kind of analysis isn’t possible with dog breeds, however, because we don’t know the total number of individual dogs in a breed. In other words, you have one raffle ticket – but you aren’t sure how many other people entered. What are your chances of winning? Similarly, it’s not possible to determine scientifically that Dalmatians are more likely to bite than Dachshunds, because you would have to know what percent of Dalmatians bite versus what percent of Dachshunds bite.

Let’s talk about pit bulls in relation to other breed populations. In the AKC and UKC registry, you could suggest that there are fewer “pit bulls” than, say, Labrador Retrievers. And since it appears that Labs have not killed anyone, and pit bulls have, it’s clear that there are a higher percentage of pit bulls killing people. But are the registries reflecting the breed ratios properly? Consider that “pit bulls” are a collection of several breeds. They are extremely popular, are bred prolifically, and more often than not, they are not registered in a breed club. Animal shelters are overflowing with pit bulls and the pit bull population has skyrocketed. So how many “pit bulls” are there? It’s a difficult question to answer – and one that nobody has ever tried to conclusively answer – for any breed.

As a result of all of these unknowns, evaluating the relative “danger” of one breed to another completely impossible. But that doesn’t stop people from trying.

More Fatal Attack Statistics

In the rush to pin blame on certain breeds, some very important (and telling) statistics are completely overlooked.

First and foremost, where did these attacks occur? In 1997-1998, the overwhelming majority of fatal attacks (78%, or 21 out of 27) were committed by dogs on their own property. Another 5 attacks (19%) were committed by unrestrained dogs off their property – in other words, loose dogs. Most significant of all, only one fatal attack resulted from a restrained dog off its property (it should be added that this is the only known such incident during the entire twenty year period from 1979-1998). (1)

We know that 78% of fatal attacks occurred on the dog’s property (in the yard, in the house, etc). It’s interesting to note that around 70% of non-fatal attacks/bites also occur on the dog’s property. (2) This actually makes sense, since most dog-human interaction occurs around the home. It should also be observed that the situation where a dog owner is most responsible, i.e. restraining their dog while it is in public, is also the least likely to result in a person’s death (only one such occurrence in 20 years).

Of the dogs committing fatal attacks on its own property (21), three such attacks were caused by a restrained dog. It has been proven time and time again that tethering a dog actually results in aggressive behavior. It can also be mentally damaging, and even deadly, to the dog. (6) Despite this knowledge, people continue to chain their dogs. Many cities, made aware of the problem, have enacted tethering laws specifying the length and weight of the tether, and even the maximum number of hours a dog may spend on a tether. Why put a weight limit on the tether? Because, as many animal control officers will tell you, pit bulls have been found chained by enormous logging chains. These are so heavy that the dog is scarcely able to move.

However, again, this information is limited in what it can tell us. There is no breed data available here. We don’t know which breeds were involved in what situations. In the case of the dogs on their property, were the victims children? Elderly? Burglars? And the dogs – were they guard dogs? Did they have behavioral problems? And the owners – were they aware of the problem? What did they do? There are a lot of questions and not many answers.

What makes pit bulls unique

Actually, it’s not surprising to see pit bulls at the top of the fatal attack chart. Their position in society is, without a doubt, unlike that of any other breed. It can be argued that the pit bull is the most abused and neglected breed-type of all. (5)

We see appalling photos on websites of skeletal pit bulls staggering into the arms of a rescuer. We witness the horrific images on television shows like Animal Planet’s Animal Cops and Animal Precinct of half starved, bloody pit bulls being carried bodily by animal control officers out of their prisons because they are too weak to walk. I have personally seen rescued pit bulls with ears completely hacked off by owners attempting to crop their dog’s ears in a “fighter” cut – with a pair of scissors or a kitchen knife. Despite their pain at the hands of humans, these pit bulls lift their broken bodies to lick the faces of their rescuers.

I want to make some conjectures regarding why pit bulls lead other breeds in fatal dog attack statistics, but there are several areas here where I’m going to skim the surface of certain issues. There are other pages and other places to read more in depth if you have questions.

The pit bull, unlike almost any other breed, is the dog of choice for the horrific, illegal practice of dog fighting. The abuse these dogs receive in this respect is unparalleled. The fact that dog fighting is illegal has done nothing to stem its popularity. In fact, dog fighting is becoming more and more prevalent in the U.S. Dog fighting is a brutal, gruesome, deadly activity; the dogs suffer unbearably and die from wounds inflicted upon them during a fight. It is the case that children do sometimes attend dogfights. Dogfights in the street are also common events.

Considering this single reason alone, I am utterly amazed that there are not even more fatal dog attacks committed by pit bulls. Dog fighting is not limited to a handful of dogs here and there. Thousands of dogs are currently used for the sole purpose of pit fighting. The fact that the great majority of these thousands of fighting dogs are not attacking and killing people is significant.

Firstly, it makes clear the distinction between aggression towards dogs (pit fighting) and aggression toward humans. The pit bull, as originally bred, was to be aggressive towards dogs in order to make it successful in the pit. But it was not to be aggressive towards humans – you try pulling two human-aggressive dogs apart in the middle of a dogfight! “Unlike other dogs, the traditional fighting pit bull should not redirect his aggression toward people when in the heat of battle. (The same may not be true of the urban street fighter.)” (4) This final comment is significant; dogs used in street fighting are generally owned by ignorant thugs who just want a mean dog – aggressive towards human or canine.

Appallingly, in some U.S. states (Idaho, Iowa, Wyoming), dog fighting is a mere misdemeanor. In some states (Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Nevada), the possession of dogs for the purpose of fighting is legal! Attending a dogfight is legal in Georgia and Hawaii, and simply a misdemeanor in 28 states! Despite their disgracefully lax regulations regarding dog fighting, ironically, cities and counties within these states enact breed specific legislation that restricts or bans pit bulls! How does your state deal with dog fighting? http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/dogfighting_statelaws.pdf

Historically, and it is still true today, pit bulls are known for their unswerving loyalty and unstoppable desire to “please their owner”. (3) A responsible owner who wants a well-behaved, friendly pit bull will get just that. But an owner who wants their pit bull to be aggressive will also get their wish. Because people are under the impression that pit bulls are human-aggressive, some people (generally people who want an aggressive dog) go straight for the breed-type, while others (usually upstanding citizens) steer clear – naturally resulting in greater numbers of obedient, aggressive pit bulls instead of obedient, friendly pit bulls.

Pit bulls are strong, and of a medium to large size. In fact, the trend toward breeding bigger and bigger “pit bulls” (usually undertaken by the same ignoramuses who want aggressive dogs) certainly means that these mutant dogs can do significant damage if they attack a person. It is necessary, therefore, to breed and train for a relaxed and friendly demeanor. But the ever-too-common pathetic loser ruins the poor dog in his search for a symbol of power.

Huge, aggressive dogs are not pit bulls. Such dogs do not fit any of the breeds’ physical descriptions, nor do they have the temperament and personality that is expected of a pit bull. Despite the fact that these large, aggressive dogs are being called “pit bulls” by the media, policy-makers, and their own money-hungry breeders, they are not representative of the breed-type.

When you consider the abusive situations in which hundreds of thousands of pit bulls find themselves, shouldn’t there be more fatal attacks by pit bulls? It’s a testament to their stable and friendly temperament that there are not.

But should deadly dog bites be our primary focus here? Fatal dog attacks stay relatively constant in occurrence from year to year. But non-fatal dog bites appear to be on the rise. (1) Dog bites are one of the top 12 causes of non-fatal injury in the United States. (10)

Non-Fatal Dog Bites – A Preventable Crisis

Each year, approximately 0.00001% of all annual dog bites result in death. (1) What about the other estimated 4.7 million dog bites, almost 800,000 of which require treatment? (2,7,8) In fact, these statistics are probably an understatement – these are only the bites that are actually reported.

Based on the bites we have data on, a number of observations can be made:

1) Children make up between 50% - 60% of all bites. (8,9) Injury rate is highest for 5 to 9 year olds. (7)

2) Family dogs and neighbors’ dogs account for 80% of dog bites to children. (7)

3) Intact dogs are significantly more likely to bite than neutered dogs. (11)

The incidence of such non-fatal bites is a cause for concern amongst those involved in the medical and animal control occupations. A great effort is spent by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), among others, to educate about dog bite prevention.

The Lamest Excuse in the Book

“It turned on me for no reason.” “The attack was unprovoked.” “I don’t understand… it was such a friendly dog.” Statements like these are all-too-common after a dog bites. The media loves to quote them. They blame the human-dog conflict squarely on the dog. But anyone familiar with canine behavior will know that dogs do not “turn on” people. We just completely miss all the warning signs. Trainers, veterinarians, and behaviorists are constantly trying to get this message across.

Dogs rely entirely on their body language to tell us how they are feeling. The vast majority of human beings have no clue what dogs are trying to say through their movements and postures. Similarly, actions that make perfect sense to us mean something entirely different in canine culture. Dogs only have one weapon – their teeth – and it’s the only thing they can use to protect themselves when communications break down. Inevitably, this massive miscommunication between dog and human cultures results in injuries and deaths on both sides.

I highly recommend The Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson for an in-depth and fascinating reading on canine behavior. This book should be at the top of every dog owner’s reading list.

Dog Bite Prevention

There is no centralized database for recording dog bite information, nor have there been any major research studies on the issue, despite its severity. Most information about dog bites is gathered haphazardly from hospital records, news media, and police reports, among other sources. There are no universal “Dog Bite Report” forms. We have no meaningful way to gather and analyze information about dog bites and attacks.

Based on small-scale studies, behaviorists’ findings, and knowledge of canine behavior, many organizations have come up with sensible guidelines to reducing dog attacks.

Owners:

· Select a dog that fits into your family and lifestyle.

· Socialize your dog to people and animals.

· Don’t let your dog roam free.

· Train your dog to follow basic commands.

· Spay/neuter your dog.

· Do not chain or tether your dog.

· Don’t allow your dog to be threatened or teased.

· Don’t encourage aggressive behavior.

For all adults and children:

· Never approach an unfamiliar dog.

· Never run from or scream around a dog.

· Children and infants should never be left unsupervised around dogs, not even the family pet.

· Don’t stare a dog in the eyes.

· Don’t disturb a dog that is sleeping, eating, or caring for puppies.

· If a strange dog approaches you, stand still, stand tall, and don’t look in its eyes.

· If a dog knocks you over, roll into a ball, cover your face, and stay still.

The value of these guidelines is often lost on people until tragedy finally strikes. Scanning the news media reaps us some excellent examples. In one case, a child tried to scare away an approaching dog by flapping his hat wildly at it; when that enticed the dog closer, he ran screaming and was ultimately knocked down and mauled. (Appropriate response: “Stand still, stand tall, and don’t look in its eyes”). In another story, a four-year-old was left alone in the backyard with the family’s three huge dogs; she lost most of her face. (Violation of: “Children and infants should never be left unsupervised around dogs, not even the family pet.”) Loose dogs also make headlines after a deadly rampage through a neighborhood, but after the owner says, “They’ve never hurt anyone before…” the dogs usually get euthanized and the owner gets away free.

It seems we have a lax attitude about dog safety. A dog is considered “safe” until it performs the very natural act of biting a person; then it is “unsafe” and euthanized. The slogan “any dog can bite” does not sink in until it has proven itself true. Though the bite is a natural consequence of our flippant attitude toward our companion animals, we prefer to believe the dog is “abnormal”.

Conclusion

Dog bites, though almost entirely preventable through education and understanding, continue to occur with alarming frequency. You do not need to be an expert on canine behavior to live a safe, peaceful life among dogs. Even basic guidelines, when followed, can significantly reduce the number of dog bites and attacks that happen in the U.S. every year.

Pit bulldogs make a great scapegoat, but are they the real problem? When pit bulls become THE reason we have to deal with dog attacks, it makes life easier for us. We don’t have to ask any more questions.

“What kind of dog did this?” A pit bull.

“Why did the dog bite you?” Because it’s a pit bull.

“What could you have done to avoid this bite?” Nothing, it’s a pit bull.

“Are you going to question the owner?” It’s not their fault. It’s a pit bull.

“What are you going to do about the dog?” Kill it. It’s just a pit bull.

While policymakers and media beat the whipping boy to death, we get a big fat Band-Aid.

1) Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.

2) “Take a bite out of dog attacks, says AVMA, ASPS, and CDC”. Press release by ASPS, AVMA, CDC: May 16, 2003.

3) “Pit bulls: Man’s Best Friend?” The Stamford Advocate, Apr. 24, 1996.

4) NACA. “Breaking Up Dog Fights in Shelters”, NACA News, May/June 2004, Vol. 27, No. 3, pg. 18.

5) “Reporting Neglect and Abuse”, American PitBull Registry

http://www.pitbullregistry.com/reportingneglectandabuse.htm

6) HSUS. “The Facts About Chaining and Tethering”, HSUS, 2004.

http://www.hsus.org/ace/11865

7) CDC. Nonfatal Dog Bite-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments – United States, 2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2003; 52(26); 605-610.

8) “National Dog Bite Prevention Week, 2004”. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

9) AVMA. “Don’t Worry, The Won’t Bite.” April 28, 2004.

10) Sacks JJ, Kresnow M, Houston B. Dog Bites: how big a problem? Injury Prevention 1996;2:52-4.

11) 1999 Severe Animal Attack and Bite Surveillance Summary. Texas Department of Health. http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/zoonosis/resppet/bites/bite99.pdf

Copyright 2004

Author Jennifer Peterson

http://pitbulls.jentown.com

[halter91]

You know whats funny, one of the biggest nastiest dogs in the world is a Mastiff, the dog from Tuner and Hooch, anyways, they were bred in Europe to defend castles and what not. How come you don't hear about these dogs mauling people? It's not the dogs fault it's the owners. I'm sure the breeds do have different temperments, but in general it's how they are raised and cared for. My brother has a pit bull and she is the most gentle dog i've met. I have a half Rotty/Boxer and he's a gentle giant.

[Beaudry]

Not really. I'd say you weren't all that familiar with dogs as compared with others, even taking into account the backyard breeding.

Your analysis makes absolutely no sense. I grew up around dogs and had one (or two) almost my whole life. Your analysis would be akin to saying "redman wasn't loved as a child so he makes up for it by loving his dog" It just doesn't make any sense.

[AdamB]

Show me. I think you are just making that up. Seriously, show me.

Examination of newspaper archival records dating back to the 1950’s and 1960’s reveal the same types of severe and fatal attacks occurring then as today. The only difference is the breed of dog responsible for these events. A random study of 74 severe and fatal attacks reported in the Evening Bulletin (Philadelphia, PA) from 1964-1968, show no severe or fatal attacks by Rottweilers and only one attack attributed to a Pit-Bull-type dog. The dogs involved in most of these incidents were the breeds that were popular at the time.

After W.W.2 and all the excitement of the GSD being the number one breed being bought, sold and registered in the the U.S. had calmed down, the price of popularity had to be paid. Some of the bad results of uncontrolled breeding practices became more noticeable to the public. There were instances being reported in the newspapers of dog attacks, the GSD was given the reputation of an aggressive, uncontrollable dog. When in truth, it was the result of a few bad breeders who altered their bloodline's temperament by breeding the same low quality dog with another low quality dog. The breeders who mass produced the puppies and did not, could not, or didn't care to socialize the puppies properly.

Between 1994 and 1999, according to the National Canine Research Foundation, there was 31 fatal Rottweiler attacks vs. 15 for "pit bulls" and "pit bull-type" breeds. This correspondes with the height of rottie popularity which peaked in the late 1990's per the AKC. Also note that there were 31 rottweiler or rottweiler-mix specific attacks, whereas the numbers for pit bulls is actually made up for an entire group of breeds. Thus, American Staffordshires may only account for 2, ABPTs for 5 or 6, etc.

Actually talk to most GSD and Doberman owners and breeders, and they will tell you about the problems those breeds have had in the past.

I doubt seriously that labs and jack russels are confused as pit bulls. But yes, those dogs you listed, the ones with the ability and inclination to maul people on the regular.....those are the ones I am talking about. Also completely off topic and clouding the main issue.

Dog attack originally reported as "Pit Bulls" but actually lab mixes in NY Town

Pit Bull Kills Baby In Leeds Oops...guess not....

Pit Bull Mauls Child in NY - wait....its a boxer

Originally Pit Bull Attack - Now Bullmastiff Attack

Pit bull attack actually lab mix

Woman claims she was attacked by Rottie and Other dog - Story fabricated and Lab likely suspect

Mauling reported as Pit Bull attack actually Dalmation/Great Dane/Whippet mix

Dogs attack owner - police said they were APBTs, but in fact were American Bulldogs

the above are just a few of the cases of mistaken identity. Generally, people will label a dog if it even appears similar to a pit. Another case is the one in San Fran where it was nationally reported as a pit bull attack when it was Presas. Still trying to find the article about the JRT that was mistaken for a pitbull.

Alright, Please try to twist words a little more.

Funny I didnt see those breeds as accounting for 3/4 of all deaths related to dogs. So no, i have no problem with them. Just the ones that kill an inordinate amount of people, THOSE are the ones that I have a problem with. Your disregard for human life, quite frankly, is kinda sick.

First, I do not have a disregard for human life. The VAST MAJORITY, 99% of these dogs are not going to kill someone. I refuse to blame a group of breeds for the behavior of the tiny majority.

Do you have children? Do you let them ride bicycles? If so, do you know 624 people were killed on their bikes in 2004, more than the total number of reported dog fatalities by all breeds in 20 years? Geez, people who let their kids ride bikes must have a total disregard for their child's safety!

Also, pit bull type dogs, let alone individual breeds that are usually catagorized as "pitbulls" do not account for 3/4ths of all deaths related to dogs. Part of the problem with the numbers is while they will list specific numbers for other breeds, ie " German Shepards killed xx, Rotties Killed xx", they lump 5 or 6 individual breeds into 1 group, which is going to skew the number upwards. for the whole. Irish Staffordshire Terriers, a "pit bull breed" may not be repsonible for any deaths, or be the main cause. See my point?

I do however have little patience for people who latch onto one thought (pitbulls = death machines), and fail to do any research at all on the breeds which they wish to exterminate beyond what the television tells them.

At least most of the people in this thread who are against pitbulls have taken the time to rationally discuss their reasons and try and support those reasons - you pretty much cut and paste the same damn post and insult those who disagree with you.

Again, the number has little corelation to the actually arguement, and you know it. The point is: with so many choices of dogs, why the hell does someone pick the MOST DANGEROUS ONE? So out of 300 or whatever different breeds of dogs, you cant find one that you like that doent kill people at the rate that Pit Bulls do? You have to have this one specific dog? Why? I keep asking, no one anwers, you just nitpick at semantics.

People have answered you, but here ya go-

The vast majority of "pit bulls" are actually extremely good tempered towards people. ABPTs, for example, ranked the same as Golden Retrievers as far as passing rate by the American Temperment Test Society. Per the American Canine Temperment Testing Association, 95% of all pitbulls which take the test pass, vs. an average of 77% for other breeds. And while, if they do bote, it is usually worse, pitbulls are near the bottom of the list for pobability of biting someone. This has to do with their history, which I would recommend you research.

APBTs are now starting to be used as therapy dogs in many places. Damn hospitals, no regard for human life.

- Most pitbull breeds are extremely healthy, and do not have near the number of genetic problems other modern dog breeds have.

- easy to train once control is established, and very eager to please.

- Generally good with children as they generally are much slower to become annoyed. As with all dogs, you have to supervise them with children. It does not take a large dog to seriously injure or kill a child if pushed to far, etc. They are not good for young children, because as with any strong animal, they can hurt a child without meaning too just be rough playing.

- Short coat and ease of grooming, low shedding overall (seasonal), which eliminates alot of breeds.

- Good fit for those who are very active as they have tons of energy.

- Very intelligent

- Generally good at dog-related sports, such as Obidence Trials and sled pulls (which they excell at).

- Appearence - they appeal in looks to the same people who like bulldogs, boxers, mastiffs, etc. ie: overall build, head shape, size. but wish to avoid the problems those other breeds have, such as Mastiffs hip problems, tendacy towards cancer, and short life span, bulldogs with breathing issues, etc.

For example, I personally do not like the looks of shepards, retrievrers, etc. Does not mean if I find one I think is great I won't get it simply because of that, but it is a factor. I chose bullmastiffs over APBTs because of energy levels, not reputation. For some, even though a bullmastiff has many of the above qualities and look, they do not want the drool or very large size.

hehe, I am considering a Pug next though....kinda a before and after picture of my bullies

- In addition to a good temperment, most seem to be absolute clowns, which some people like.

The above mostly applies to APBTs and American Staffordshire Terriers. Some people perfer the Irish Staffordshire because it is much smaller than the others, some prefer the Bull Terrier because they like the long, narrower head shape.

This is also assuming you are doing your research, getting the dog from a good breeder, etc. and not someone giving them away on the street corner or chaining it in the back yard.

[AdamB]

Let's just stick to discussion of one breed, the American Pit Bull Terrier.

Okie dokie, no problem. I had to repond tho to the above, I am running on like 1 nerve atm

However, I do have a question concerning just retricting the discussion to the APBT - can anyone find the stats concerning the APBT specifically. I have been trying all morning and can only find "pit bull type" or just "pit bull", which could easily not be a APBT.

not trying to nitpick, honestly asking. I would like to know myself.

[Huly]

Good post Adam! I think you summed up the entire thread!

[Huly]

Okie dokie, no problem. I had to repond tho to the above, I am running on like 1 nerve atm

However, I do have a question concerning just retricting the discussion to the APBT - can anyone find the stats concerning the APBT specifically. I have been trying all morning and can only find "pit bull type" or just "pit bull", which could easily not be a APBT.

not trying to nitpick, honestly asking. I would like to know myself.

Everything I can find is "Pit Bull" Type. Due to no one being able to identify if it is a mix or whay type it is they lump it together.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/legislation.html

(has a test to see if you can pick out the Pit Bull)

"Pit bull" is not a breed, but a "type" that encompasses several registered breeds and crossbreeds. Therefore, statistics that claim "Pit bulls" are responsible for some percentage of attacks are lumping many breeds together, then comparing that to other dogs that are counted as individual breeds.

Breed identification is left up to victim and witness testimony, and is often wrong. Due to negative press, biting dogs of almost ANY breed have been called "Pit bulls". Try this little quiz for fun: Find the Pit Bull - See how many people you know can pick out a pit bull from pictures, let alone in the middle of an attack.

Search the Center for Disease Control site. Even the CDC supports the position that irresponsible owners, not breed, are the chief cause of dog bites. They have done studies that indicate that the most "dangerous breed" of dog changes with popularity and reputation.

Search the American Temperament Test Society. Pit bulls have an average score that beats even the "ultimate family dog", the Golden Retriever.

[Huly]

Found this from:

http://www.realpitbull.com/

What About Bite Statistics? Do They Prove We Need BSL?:

Dog Bite Statistics are unreliable sources of information regarding the "viciousness" or dangerousness of breeds for the following reasons:

1) Very few people can accurately identify dog breeds.

2) Breeds are not listed individually, but rather under group headings. For instance, under the heading "pit bull", you will find no less than 3 distinct breeds, mixes of any of those three breeds, any dog that appears to be one of those breeds, plus any misidentified dogs. And make no mistake, dogs get misidentified all the time. There is a case of an Akita attack that was reported as a "pit bull attack" in the media. This author's dogs have been mistaken for Boxers, Bulldogs, and yes, one was even mistaken for an Akita. Just about any Pit Bull owner can tell you of many cases where their dog has dealt with a case of mistaken identity.

3) Bite stats take into account only reported bites.

4) Bite stats do not take into account the dogs of a specified breed who do NOT bite. No one knows the overall percentage of Pit Bulls who bite compared to, let's say, the percentage of Dalmatians or Golden Retrievers who bite.

5) Bite stats do not list "provoked" bites that occur at grooming shops and veterinary offices. If you took a survey of groomers and veterinarians, I'm sure you'd find an overwhelming majority of them would tell you that the small, "cutesy" dogs that people generally hold as harmless are the dogs that give them the most trouble. This author is an ex-groomer and can attest to the fact that the big dogs, particularly the Pit Bulls, and other similar breeds, are by far the most cooperative.

6) Bite stats DO list the truly provoked bites, i.e. dogs who have bitten after being teased/harrassed/abused.

[jbooma]

Hey! Bullmastiffs are excellent for getting their owners off their butts and doing house cleaning - you can only have so much drool on your ceiling before you have to do some house work

Actually, bullies are excellent protection dogs in that they will show no hesitation to go after a threat, and seem to have a 6th sense when it comes to judging people and potential threats, yet it is not in their nature to bite, so they will just corner/prohibit the movement of said threat.

Or at least that is what I have been told. My house was robbed a few years ago and my bully slept through it. :doh:

bullies think they are guard dogs, the problem is they will just drool on that person, plus they protect you from objects in the hallway like boxes :laugh: :laugh:

[AdamB]

You know whats funny, one of the biggest nastiest dogs in the world is a Mastiff, the dog from Tuner and Hooch, anyways, they were bred in Europe to defend castles and what not. How come you don't hear about these dogs mauling people? It's not the dogs fault it's the owners. I'm sure the breeds do have different temperments, but in general it's how they are raised and cared for. My brother has a pit bull and she is the most gentle dog i've met. I have a half Rotty/Boxer and he's a gentle giant.

Actually, there are alot of different kinds of Mastiffs, some were bred to guard estates, like the Bullmastiff and English Mastiff, others were bred as fighting dogs, like the Neopolitan. Not sure on Doug de Bordeaux's (hooch's breed). The Romans would actually take mastiff dogs, and attach razor-sharp blades to them, then send them into enemy formations (origin of the death race 2000 car! )

Mastiff attacks do occure, but unless it is one of the large varities, like the English (220 pounds plus), they get confused with other breeds, like pitbulls, since the small varities, like bullmastiffs, can appear to be pits. Also, rottweilers are technically mastiffs, being a cross between a local mastiff breed used as a cattle driver and doberman-type dogs.

English Mastiffs (and their ancestors), when used to guard castles, were rarely socialized, being staked out on chains. Once people started keeping them as pets, they became extremely human-oriented to the point that even today, a mastiff sometimes will starve themselves if seperated from their owners.

Later on, bullmastiffs were developed when poachers on estates began using dogs to block or shield them from mastiffs (which were usually left loose to roam at night). They bred mastiffs to old world bulldogs (which are alot like modern APBTs, etc vs. what we think of as a bulldog) to get a breed that was faster, more agile, brindle in color (camoflauge for working at night), and had no problem going through any dogs the poachers brought.

Both breeds are instictively not biters. THey were bred and developed to "capture" the poachers and hold them till the warden would arrive. Unless otherwise trained, etc. a mastiff will grasp an intruders arm, leg, neck, head, etc. in their mouths and apply just enough pressure to hold - they do so instinctly, without training.

And....I have been off on a tangent.......umm.....nm

[AdamB]

bullies think they are guard dogs, the problem is they will just drool on that person, plus they protect you from objects in the hallway like boxes :laugh: :laugh:

hell, mine will sit and whine if there is something huge in her way....like a broom handle, 8lb cat, a piece of paper, a pair of shoes......

[Beaudry]

Adam, your statistics don't mean squat unless we can get a total dog population statistic. The only truely meaniful statistic is the ratio of the total number of a breed compared to the fatalities caused by that breed.

Let's say that 7 deaths are caused by pit bulls and 8 are caused by german shepards. That seems closed, but let's assume that there are 3,000 pit bulls and 20,000 german shepards. That means that 0.2% of pit bulls cause a fatality, while 0.04% of german shepards cause a fatality. That would make pit bulls 5 times more likely to kill somebody. Of course, we don't have these numbers so I am just pulling them out of thin air as an example.

A lot of the resources the "pro pit bull" crowd is providing are from very pro pit bull organizations. Sort of like quoting newsmax or democratic underground for a political thread. You always have to view these with a skeptical eye.

[AdamB]

Everything I can find is "Pit Bull" Type. Due to no one being able to identify if it is a mix or whay type it is they lump it together.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/legislation.html

(has a test to see if you can pick out the Pit Bull)

wait...you mean enough people have mistaken JRTs for pitbulls that they included them in a "find the pitbull" test? I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!

Sorry, last nerve just broke...damn cat just used my leg as a scratching post.

[Beaudry]

wait...you mean enough people have mistaken JRTs for pitbulls that they included them in a "find the pitbull" test? I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!

Sorry, last nerve just broke...damn cat just used my leg as a scratching post.

This is almost as bad as a political thread. Nobody is willing to consider the other side and they think that only the other side is being stubborn.

Fine, let's change the subject to the rottweiler. They are not easily mistaken as other dogs, like pit bulls can be. They kill even more people a year, in recent history.

[AdamB]

Adam, your statistics don't mean squat unless we can get a total dog population statistic. The only truely meaniful statistic is the ratio of the total number of a breed compared to the fatalities caused by that breed.

Let's say that 7 deaths are caused by pit bulls and 8 are caused by german shepards. That seems closed, but let's assume that there are 3,000 pit bulls and 20,000 german shepards. That means that 0.2% of pit bulls cause a fatality, while 0.04% of german shepards cause a fatality. That would make pit bulls 5 times more likely to kill somebody. Of course, we don't have these numbers so I am just pulling them out of thin air as an example.

A lot of the resources the "pro pit bull" crowd is providing are from very pro pit bull organizations. Sort of like quoting newsmax or democratic underground for a political thread. You always have to view these with a skeptical eye.

Right, based on your stats (for the discussion, good enough) APBTs are more likely to kill someone if they attack. No one said otherwise.

What those of us who are arguing pro-ABPT is trying to say is you have to be fair when judging whether a dog is a dangrous breed, you have to look at the probablity of that dog attacking at all (bites, serious attacks, fatalities, etc), as well as looking that that breeds CURRENT standing in society, ie: how overbred, the dog's image, etc. The higher the dogs popularity, the more they have a "bad dog" image, etc. they higher the number of attacks are going to be vs. the number of dogs.

Also, we have no way of knowing how many pit bull -type dogs there are in this country since it is the hardest dog class to track since the AKC does not recognize APBTs as a breed at all. There is probably much higher than 3000 APBTs in the country. Not as much as GSD's registered, I agree, but at the same time, like in my area (El Paso), I see 20 pitbulls for every shepard (not just GSDs).

And I agree, those of us who are pro use sites that are pro. Those who are against pits use things like the CDC report - problem is that alot of times reports like the CDC and news stories, etc. are proven wrong as far as numbers. When researching pits, you also run into a problem where anti-pit sites are of the "this dog bit me so all are vicious" nature vs. actually trying to present reseach to support the argument.

Aother thing, using your example - even if your numbers were actually right (I know you stated they were not, this is just for arguments sake), that is still less than 1% of an entire breed's population on which people are basing an opinion of the entire breed.

[zoony]

Getting back to the topic, why own these dogs?

Here's a snippet from the Cane Corso website. :doh: :doh:

Corsos, especially males, can be very dominant and will challenge you for what he perceives to be leadership of the pack (your home and family). Considering there size and abilities it’s best that a person who has experience with this type of behavior should own one.

Good Lord, what kind of sane or rational person brings this animal into their house?

That is the real question.

[AdamB]

This is almost as bad as a political thread. Nobody is willing to consider the other side and they think that only the other side is being stubborn.

yup, I think the last thread like this went the same way. The only thing either side can agree on is that there needs to be some form of regulation put in place.

BTW, my last comment, which I admit was inappropriate in what has for the most part a civil discussion was in reference to an earlier comment in which the poster seriously doubted a jack russel terrier could be confused for a pit bull. I apologize.

Fine, let's change the subject to the rottweiler. They are not easily mistaken as other dogs, like pit bulls can be. They kill even more people a year, in recent history.

And again, the number of Rottweiler fatal attacks corresponded to the rise in popularity of the dog through the 1990's, which means more rotties being pumped out by puppymills and backyard breeders and owned by the wrong type of people.

The population has started to decrease as popularity wanes, thus less demand for the dog, thus fatal rotties attacks are decreasing, slowly, but decreasing. The same trend has occured in other breeds.