iNow Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 This survey is in response to another thread which has discussed the banning of pit bulls in many areas. The argument has been made that, since pit bulls harm more people than do other breeds that they are inherently dangerous and should be banned. Others have discussed the importance of conditioning, and how only dogs which have been raised improperly or with malicious intent will cause harm to humans, suggesting this behavior is not breed specific. This poll seeks to identify two things. First, how many distinct pit bull dogs you have encountered in your life time. Second, how many times you have been attacked by different pit bulls. If you answer anything other than "zero" to the first (and poll) question, please share your answer and describe how many times you've been attacked or bitten by a pit bull. Please also feel free to share stories about direct friends or family members that have been attacked by pit bulls, but recall that this thread is asking about your own personal experiences. My response: Greater than 10. I've known about 12 different dogs of the pit bull breed, interacting on numerous occasions, and have never been attacked nor felt threatened. My experience, however, may not be the norm, and this poll seeks to evaluate what that norm is.
SkepticLance Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 To iNow I am not sure that your approach can properly be called scientific. You are dealing with very small numbers of people and experiences here, in your survey. The references DrDNA and I provided deal with dog attacks across the entire country. Total numbers of attacks are in the thousands. That rather makes a very small scale survey a bit misleading, don't you agree? My reference showed that between 1979 and 1998 in the United States, 66 people were killed by attacks from pit bulls, while the next worst (Rottweilers) killed only 39. This kind of data is surely more valid?
MrSandman Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 Well maybe they just have a higher tendency to violence. Sort of like some people. I've played with pittbulls and the love to chew on things, but they can be quite nice. Rottweilers on the other hand can be some of the nicest of dogs. I think it has to do with how you treat them.
iNow Posted October 1, 2007 Author Posted October 1, 2007 I am not sure that your approach can properly be called scientific. You are dealing with very small numbers of people and experiences here, in your survey. While it may be a non-representative population sample, it is still scientific. It's at least appropriate to our group, and is actually asking a different question than most studies on the topic. The references DrDNA and I provided deal with dog attacks across the entire country. Total numbers of attacks are in the thousands. Those links did not discuss total number of pit bulls encountered by the larger population. As I mentioned above, they limited their sample to those that had already been attacked, THEN asked which breed did it. What I am after is to get a feel for the number of people who have had interactions with the breed and NOT been attacked (and I acknowledge the limits imposed by doing so in the forum like this, but it's at least a place to start). My reference showed that between 1979 and 1998 in the United States, 66 people were killed by attacks from pit bulls, while the next worst (Rottweilers) killed only 39. This kind of data is surely more valid? Again, it measured something different. Also, when compared to the population at large, and the number of pit bulls interacted with by that population, I'm confident that the numbers you shared barely show up on the proverbial radar. Anyway, I am curious to see where this goes. After all, maybe my assumptions are wrong, and perhaps pit bulls are more dangerous than cars, cigarettes, red meat, poverty, obesity, war, and all manner of other things. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well maybe they just have a higher tendency to violence. Sort of like some people. I've played with pittbulls and the love to chew on things, but they can be quite nice. Rottweilers on the other hand can be some of the nicest of dogs. I think it has to do with how you treat them. I agree. Also, how they are raised is important.
SkepticLance Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 There is no doubt that the way dogs are raised has a profound effect on their tendency to be aggressive. This applies to pit bulls as well as any other breed. However, that is not the question. The question is : are pit bulls more likely to attack and kill, compared to most other dog breeds? Answer : yes. This is so absolutely clear cut that I am amazed that anyone seeks to query it. The figure of 66 people killed in 20 years is, of course, the merest tip of the iceberg. For every person actually killed, there will be hundreds attacked. For every human attacked, there will be dozens of dogs attacked. Pit bulls were originally bred as fighting dogs - to fight other dogs, and this is reflected by their tendency to attack, maim, and kill other dogs. The New Zealand government placed a ban on the breeding of pit bulls. I believe that was fully justified.
iNow Posted October 2, 2007 Author Posted October 2, 2007 There is no doubt that the way dogs are raised has a profound effect on their tendency to be aggressive. This applies to pit bulls as well as any other breed. However, that is not the question. The question is : are pit bulls more likely to attack and kill, compared to most other dog breeds? Thank you for explaining your position. I completely understand what you are stating, acknowledge the evidence you cite, but I just disagree with your final interpretation and stance. I am completely okay with that, and hope you are as well. However, this is my poll, so I get to ask the questions. I am trying to find out how many interactions occur with pit bulls which do NOT end badly, and then compare that number against the total of interactions that do end badly. This is the criteria I have chosen to make MY decision on the matter.
dichotomy Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 My 2 cents worth... Ban them. I haven't encountered any, off the leash, pitbulls. So I voted 0. But the obvious thing that sticks in my mind is that Pitbulls are physically powerful dogs, capable of killing and causing severe injury. I would not risk a 'friendly' or unfriendly encounter if I could help it. I would gladly risk a possible savage encounter with a fox terrier, but not one with a pitbull. Size does matter. The owners generally seem to be irresponsible and nervous types, in my encounters (about 15 to 20 encounters). There has been much talk of banning them in many states of australia, generally due to irresponsible owners that are attracted to the breed. They'd make good lion dogs. But suburbia is not the place for them. Dogs I have been attacked by - 1x bull terrier 1x blue healer (the most serious) 1x fox terrier (bit my foot and I gave it a reflex 4 meter kick) 1x Rottweiler (I escaped physical harm, it just snapped at me as close as it could possibly get without contact, it was on a leash, I was very lucky here). And I've been aggessively chased and snapped at by countless other unidentifiable breeds that all love to chase bike riders.
NeonBlack Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 I thought that my cousin had a pitbull when I was young, but now I think it was actually a rotweiler (which also tend to be very aggressive as theirs was).
YT2095 Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 Dogs I have been attacked by - 1x bull terrier 1x blue healer (the most serious) 1x fox terrier (bit my foot and I gave it a reflex 4 meter kick) 1x Rottweiler (I escaped physical harm, it just snapped at me as close as it could possibly get without contact, it was on a leash, I was very lucky here). And I've been aggessively chased and snapped at by countless other unidentifiable breeds that all love to chase bike riders. you don`t per chance happen to work for the Postal Service do you?
Spyman Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 generally due to irresponsible owners that are attracted to the breed I didn't vote on the poll, I don't count my encounters with different breeds... So far during my life, I have encountered a very large sample of different dogs. And I have NEVER been attacked ! (But there have been a lot of "incidents" between my dogs and others.) My experience with dogs and owners are that any trouble is caused by the owner. Further I am inclined to say that owners with "small" dogs are generally more irresponsible. The problem is that "big" dogs causes more harm and are more attractive for "bad" guys. IMHO I think a resonable alternative to banning should be some cind of license. It would filter out a lot of the "bad" guys and also make sure that the owner knows his responsibility. (Both to the animal and the surrondings.)
Paralith Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 There is no doubt that the way dogs are raised has a profound effect on their tendency to be aggressive. This applies to pit bulls as well as any other breed. However, that is not the question. The question is : are pit bulls more likely to attack and kill, compared to most other dog breeds? Answer : yes. This is so absolutely clear cut that I am amazed that anyone seeks to query it. Yes, they attack more than other breeds. but what we're arguing is why. You say it's because they're simply inherently too aggressive and it doesn't matter who has them or how they're owned, and so they just shouldn't be allowed near people. I agree that they attack more often, but for different reasons. I think changing attitudes about pit bulls and more education about how to properly handle them would be fairer to the dogs themselves, but if it's easier for the NZ gov't to just ban the breed instead, then that was their choice. The problem is that "big" dogs causes more harm and are more attractive for "bad" guys. IMHO I think a resonable alternative to banning should be some kind of license. It would filter out a lot of the "bad" guys and also make sure that the owner knows his responsibility. (Both to the animal and the surrondings.) I definitely agree. People who want nasty mean dogs will get pit bulls and allow them to be mean and nasty. The only trouble with any kind of licensure will be the difficulty in enforcing it, and whether or not a given gov't wants to spend money on something like that.
iNow Posted October 2, 2007 Author Posted October 2, 2007 you don`t per chance happen to work for the Postal Service do you? Or perhaps ride your bike with aged steaks in the pockets? Good lord, man! You're no beastmaster. Thanks for the responses thus far everyone. I hope to increase the sample size in this poll to see about forming some further hypotheses, so I appreciate your participation.
MrSandman Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 I've been attacked by a golden retriever! Should they be banned? I think they should have people take their dogs in for tests. If the Dog is too violent they should, prescribe solutions such as muzzles. I love rottweilers, I don't own one, but they are usually quite friendly pouches. I think the reason people fear rottweilers, because of what Hollywood has portrayed them as. Pittbulls, can be great for killing things if you want them as a guard dog. Really come to how you raise the dog. I want to punt our caryn terrier, because it is so mean and stupid. I didn't raise it, my sisters did. My dog that I raised when I was 4 is docile. He loves anybody he will give him attention. Will he attack you? Only if you present a threat (Liking kicking him, but most likely he'll just walk off after a snarl). Could he be lethal, you bet in his younger days he could tear your face off. He's a medium size dog, but he has a short strong mouth that can be lethal. Should all dogs with potential to be lethal be banned? No, if your a dog lover you can see my point. If your not, you can't really see how much dogs mean to their owners. It doesn't matter what breed they are. Someone probably has a pittbull, and they probably treat it real nice and it is more docile than a poodle. Should you take their dog away?
fattyjwoods Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 that sounds like fun but, is this an expirement??? By the way pitbulls and those man-eating dogs should not be banned, but the best way to stop them from chewing on people is to restrict the access to own the dogs. I work at the NZ SPCA as a volunteer and every now and then we would get a stray pitbull sent to our doorstep, the problem is that their owners – if they have any is that they are let free to roam around the streets, hence causing trouble. Another good way is to make sure their owners are capable of owning a dog like the sort. Have any of you heard about Michael Vick and his gang of fighting dogs? Well most of them are pitbulls and rottweilers and, honestly that guy is not a capable owner.
dichotomy Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 you don`t per chance happen to work for the Postal Service do you? No, I just like riding bikes. This is over years you know. The 70's was the worst time in Melbourne for freely roaming dogs, in my experience. Or perhaps ride your bike with aged steaks in the pockets? Good lord, man! You're no beastmaster. It is difficult to master beasts when you are on a bike. But I find the bicycle pump an excellent choice of weaponry!
fattyjwoods Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 was it only the 70's? I think it's still going on around the world!
iNow Posted October 3, 2007 Author Posted October 3, 2007 I work at the NZ SPCA as a volunteer and every now and then we would get a stray pitbull sent to our doorstep, the problem is that their owners – if they have any is that they are let free to roam around the streets, hence causing trouble. This is definitely not good care and conditioning. They essentially are forced to revert to the "wild" and in those circumstances you do what you must to survive. Clearly, biting potential threats is a part of that survival. Another good way is to make sure their owners are capable of owning a dog like the sort. This is a good idea, but I'm not sure how an adequate test would be devised. Perhaps that is a good new thread to be started. I take it in all of your experiences with pit bulls (is it safe to say "more than 10?") that you've never been bitten? Have any of you heard about Michael Vick and his gang of fighting dogs? Well most of them are pitbulls and rottweilers and, honestly that guy is not a capable owner. Yes. See the OP, specifically the link within. I wouldn't be too surprised were he to answer "more than 10" and that he's been bitten.
MrSandman Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 I think we all realize what the problem is. Maybe we should take semiautos for protection or better yet a rocket lancher, so the owner doesn't have to bury their dog is it is a nasty pouch.
fattyjwoods Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Thanks iNow This is a good idea, but I'm not sure how an adequate test would be devised. Perhaps that is a good new thread to be started. I take it in all of your experiences with pit bulls (is it safe to say "more than 10?") that you've never been bitten? Sorry, if you meant how many times I’ve been bitten by a pit-bull, I’ve been bitten around 4 or 5 times but none of the bites have been serious, and yes I have interacted with over 10 pit-bulls (none of them are not pedigree), because pedigree dogs (including pit-bulls) are expensive and their ‘owners’ will not just let them run free to be picked up by the SPCA This is a good idea, but I'm not sure how an adequate test would be devised. Perhaps that is a good new thread to be started. I’ll think about it. Well maybe the person could apply to Animal Control for an application sheet. A dog Ranger could possibly come round and check out the environment. For a more extreme ban, maybe someone should check up on the person’s police records and see if the guys got any past criminal offences or animal offences. Just like how Guide Dogs trainers (Dogs who work for the Foundation for the blind. These puppies need to go for runs and they often need to learn and familiarize themselves to the environment. These dogs are really incredible, then can open cans of baked beans and they are taught to phone 111 (911 in the US) and that is how they are selected (in New Zealand) Are you only talking about pitbulls? Or all the different breeds of dangerous dogs, because I have interacted with around more than 100 different dogs, most of them crosses but yes, pitbulls are normally the most aggressive out of all the other breeds of dogs. Just a quick story, the other day I was feeding the animals. We use steel little pots to put the dog food in and there was an angry looking dog that looked very similar to a pitbull cross, I opened the cage door and gently placed the food on the ground. Now that dog was isolated because there have been reports that it’ll just randomly jump on his ‘roommates’ and bite them. Well he was the last dog to be fed and I left for the office. And ten minutes later when I returned to check on the dogs and to take the pots in – guess what happened to the poor metal pot – it had been reduced to a lump of ripped metal, while all the other pots belonging to the ‘nicer’ dogs were carefully licked clean! My experience with dogs and owners are that any trouble is caused by the owner. Further I am inclined to say that owners with "small" dogs are generally more irresponsible. The problem is that "big" dogs causes more harm and are more attractive for "bad" guys. Exactly, you don’t have a big burly-gangster looking guy walking a Chihuahua or neither do you have an old lady in her 90’ies walking a big pitbull terrier which is half her size and that her head could probably fit in the dog’s mouth.
Sisyphus Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Of course breed has to do with behavior. Anyone with any experience with dogs can tell you different breeds have different personalities associated with them. And yes, pitbulls are aggressive, though they obviously can be trained to be friendly. (You don't need such intentional training with, say, a golden retriever or a newfoundland, where you would have to try very hard to make it dangerous.) More importantly, though, pitbulls are bred to fight. It's what they're for, which means they're good at it, which means they are inherently more dangerous than almost any other dog which is just as mean but not a natural fighter. Incidentally, I'm not at all in favor of banning them, but come on. Be reasonable.
MrSandman Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Hey, remeber I was bit by a golden retriever, and not the pittbulls. There is a little to do with their breed, but very little.
SkepticLance Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 There is a hell of a lot of wishful thinking in this thread, by dog lovers who do not like to believe that any breed can be inherently nasty. There are two clear cut facts about pit bulls. 1. They were bred to be aggressive, as a fighting dog, fighting and killing other dogs. 2. They are responsible for serious attacks on humans, resulting in maiming and fatalities, at a rate of almost double that of the next worst breed. All the rest is interpretation, and often coloured by emotion rather than hard logic. To me, the logic is clear cut. They were bred to be what they are : nasty, aggressive killers. This is in their genes, as a result of breeding. It is not primarily the result of training and upbringing. Sure, how an owner treats his/her dog has a profound effect on their behaviour. But there are heaps of case histories of pit bulls raised in a caring and loving home which unpredictably turned nasty. A simple google search will show lots of such cases.
dichotomy Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 But there are heaps of case histories of pit bulls raised in a caring and loving home which unpredictably turned nasty. Yep, and there are countless stories of other dog breeds doing exactly the same thing. The main point from my perspective is that any physically powerful dog is capable of causing more damage than the smaller breeds. The pitbull, like other breeds of 'pit' dogs, is specifically bred for its physical capability to inflict the most major damage in the shortest amount of time that it can to an opponent. So really, people should choose the dog that is most appropriate to their environment. Pitbulls belong in pits, and possibly for hunting purposes as a pig dog. They are not for walking through human population centres.
pioneer Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 I have been around many bitbulls. They all look intimidating, but many are actually very nice. Most pitbulls seem to develop a strong connection to their owners. If the owner feels threatened, the dog will react and try to protect the owner. The problems occurs when the owner is a fruit loop. If they overreact to situations, their dog will also overreact. The friendly one's that I met, usually had good natured owners, and these dog were as friendly and as welcoming as the owner. Someone who is angry, mean ,or paranoid, can give the dog the wrong emotional cues causing it to overreact. These dogs are smart and develop a strong emotional connection to the owner. But that is the problem. There is no emotional owner screening, to make sure the owner can handle it. If you had a little dog, and wanted to turn it into a neurotic wreck, to suit the neurotic needs of the owner, a little dog can only nip you at worse. But this type of neurotic training, for a pit bull, can create an animal that is dangerous. These are not a good choice for neurotic pet owners. They need to pick something, that is too small, to hurt other people.
fattyjwoods Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Hey, remeber I was bit by a golden retriever, and not the pittbulls. There is a little to do with their breed, but very little. Com'on , are you saying it's got nothing ot do with the breed? I own a German Shepherd, around 4 years old and he never bites anyone. Anyway just take a look at the major news incidents about the fatal mauling's of little kids, most of them are either pure bred pitbulls or pitbull crosses. SkepticLance should know about the Virginia Ohlson incident involving two Pit Bull and Staffordshire cross dogs (in New Zealand). Now these were in a private property, fenced off. And when a old lady came by they just jumped on her and tore her to bits. She was not on their property, nor making loud noises - but they just fatally bit her. And also the incident involving Aotea Coxon (NZ) she required 290 stitches in her face because she was attacked by a American staffordshire terrier-cross, by the way she was only 2 yro There is a hell of a lot of wishful thinking in this thread, by dog lovers who do not like to believe that any breed can be inherently nasty. Hey I'm a dog lover and I don't think the breed should be banned. All I'm saying is that restrictions should be put on the breed.
Recommended Posts