Experiment: Pit Bull Interaction & Attack Poll

[GameBeth:)]

As soon as a bathtub chases your granny down the street and mauls her, I'll bet you'll see a loud call for a ban on bathtubs and we'll all be taking showers.

 

That is certainly a thought process unbecoming of an intellectual. I've trained horses for years and seen some downright nasty injuries caused by horses who were actually intending to injure the human involved. I've seen people injured by all different races of humans. So should I conclude that there are certain breeds of horses and races of humans which are more dangerous than others?

[SkepticLance]

"So should I conclude that there are certain breeds of horses and races of humans which are more dangerous than others?"

 

Humans do not vary much genetically, so the answer is no. However, there are serious differences between human cultures, leading to some (like city street gangs) having a dangerous culture.

 

Anyway, I know that was a snide throwaway comment. Back to pit bulls.

 

There is no doubt at all that pit bulls are the most dangerous breed of dogs. Since I am not a dog lover, I have no hesitation in concluding that they should be banned. I do understand that many people love their dogs, though, and will argue the other way. If they claim that the good pit bulls do outweighs the harm, they may be able to make a case. If you want to argue that their value exceeds the value of approximately 4 human lives per year in the United States, then please proceed.

 

What annoys me, though, is the denial of the problem. The problem exists, in that pit bulls sometimes attack and kill people. More so than any other breed of dog.

[WhisperToMe]

I haven't read all the post but would like to give you my experiance for the poll that was started. I have been around a lot of APBT's and have NEVER been bit. I have broken up fights between APBT's and other dogs and NEVER been bit. Maybe I have been lucky to have only been exposed to dogs that were not human aggresive. That's where breeding and handling come into play. I have on the other hand been bitten by a chiwauwau, a cocker spaniel and a liver tick bird dog. I currently own four of your so called "pit bulls" and have never been bit by any of them. They are a truelly loyal breed and great with kids, often called the "Nanny Dog" because of their gentle nature.

 

"So should I conclude that there are certain breeds of horses and races of humans which are more dangerous than others?"

 

Humans do not vary much genetically, so the answer is no. However, there are serious differences between human cultures, leading to some (like city street gangs) having a dangerous culture.

 

Anyway, I know that was a snide throwaway comment. Back to pit bulls.

 

There is no doubt at all that pit bulls are the most dangerous breed of dogs. Since I am not a dog lover, I have no hesitation in concluding that they should be banned. I do understand that many people love their dogs, though, and will argue the other way. If they claim that the good pit bulls do outweighs the harm, they may be able to make a case. If you want to argue that their value exceeds the value of approximately 4 human lives per year in the United States, then please proceed.

 

What annoys me, though, is the denial of the problem. The problem exists, in that pit bulls sometimes attack and kill people. More so than any other breed of dog.

 

Where did you get the figures to support this claim? I would be interested in seeing them.

[SkepticLance]

Whispertome

 

Check post 99

[iNow]

What annoys me, though, is the denial of the problem. The problem exists, in that pit bulls sometimes attack and kill people. More so than any other breed of dog.

 

What annoys me is how you misrepresent the conversation. Nobody has denied that pit bulls harm or kill more than other some other breeds included in the studies referenced. What people are suggesting is this:

 

The magnitude and frequency of these attacks is SO microscopic that those who advocate outright banning are the ones acting on emotion instead of reason and rationality.

 

 

It appears I've found another issue like creationism and anthropogenic global climate change... where facts and figures aren't enough to change people's world view... or, more specifically, to change their view of this loving breed. Goes to show how powerful propaganda can be.

[GameBeth:)]

"So should I conclude that there are certain breeds of horses and races of humans which are more dangerous than others?"

 

Humans do not vary much genetically, so the answer is no. However, there are serious differences between human cultures, leading to some (like city street gangs) having a dangerous culture.

 

Anyway, I know that was a snide throwaway comment. Back to pit bulls.

 

There is no doubt at all that pit bulls are the most dangerous breed of dogs. Since I am not a dog lover, I have no hesitation in concluding that they should be banned. I do understand that many people love their dogs, though, and will argue the other way. If they claim that the good pit bulls do outweighs the harm, they may be able to make a case. If you want to argue that their value exceeds the value of approximately 4 human lives per year in the United States, then please proceed.

 

What annoys me, though, is the denial of the problem. The problem exists, in that pit bulls sometimes attack and kill people. More so than any other breed of dog.

 

Actually I was not being as snide as you may think. I'm quite serious. Since many gang members are black does that make black people more dangerous? Since "Pit Bulls" are owned by many machismo wanna be thugs does that make "Pit Bulls" more dangerous? Or are we buying into hype created by the media perhaps? I can literally cite HUNDREDS of American Pit Bull Terriers owned by responsible people who have never and would never attack a human being (obviously I mean without provocation which would prompt any dog of any breed to attack, i.e. robbery, mistreatment, etc). These are real-life dogs owned by real-life people. You say Pit Bulls "attack and kill people more so than any breed of dog." Where is your point of reference here? How many different breeds of dogs have you dealt with? I assure you, I am not being snide in any way shape or form.

[Solarcat]

We think Bo Bo the pit bull was one but we're not sure. He was given to me by my son when Bo was 10 years old. Jeffery always said he was, but at 27" tall at the withers and 100-110lbs, Bo was much bigger than the average pit bull. He was a beautiful brown/black brindle with a white chest and four white paws.

 

He had a certain feline grace about him when he walked, always keeping his head down with his massive shoulder muscles bunching and relaxing. Many adults would not approach him, but most children would. Bo Bo thought of them as popsicles to lick on, which he did with great gusto.

 

One day last year, a new family with three young boys moved in three houses from us. I took Bo Bo on walks at least twice a day by their house and the boys immediately went to him and I showed them how to give him their hands so he could smell them before petting. Their parents were afraid at first, but Bo showed them how he treated children, and they quickly lost their fear. Bo Bo was a great ambassador for his breed.

 

A couple of weeks later I neglected to close the gate and Bo got out. I was in the garage doing manly things:rolleyes: and the boys walked up with Bo in tow. The oldest boy said we saw him and called to him and he came right over and licked us. We thought you didn't know he was out so we brought him home. Bo was standing there between them with his big mouf open and his tongue lolling out.

 

Bo Bo contracted cancer in 2006, but with the medicine our vet gave him, he lived almost two more years. He is playing in the meadow with all the other Rainbow dogs by the Rainbow Bridge now, waiting for me.

[SkepticLance]

To GameBeth

 

The fact that many gang members are black is not the issue. With humans, the genetic difference between different populations is effectively zero. It is cultural differences that are important.

 

My point of reference has already been posted. It is dog-kill statistics. It is clear cut numbers. 32% of such deaths in the USA over 20 years were from pit bulls.

 

Sure that is still not many dead people - just under 4 per year on average, versus nearly 40,000 per year as the road toll. Add another zero for the number killed each year by tobacco smoking. So it may not matter enough to warrant banning the breed. That is a subjective and political decision.

[GameBeth:)]

To GameBeth

 

The fact that many gang members are black is not the issue. With humans, the genetic difference between different populations is effectively zero. It is cultural differences that are important.

 

My point of reference has already been posted. It is dog-kill statistics. It is clear cut numbers. 32% of such deaths in the USA over 20 years were from pit bulls.

 

What's clear cut? The fact they were even pit bulls? Or do you think there may be a chance of a schizoid mutt or two being thrown into the mix there? Were these 32% pure bred American Pit Bull Terriers? DNA tested and documented as such? Or were they perhaps bulldog looking, untraceable heritage, backyard bred mongrels? Were they "Pit Bulls", or simply reported as such? Did some no toothed fella say he had a "Pit Bull"? Nothing here is clear cut, especially when you consider those dishing out these statistics know little if not nothing about the true American Pit Bull Terrier. I'd say at least 40-70% (I'm aiming way low here!) of so-called "owners" out there who say "Hey man, i gots me a fierce Pit Bull" don't know what the heck they are talking about. Just because some schmoe sells another schmoe a big butt headed monster doesn't mean either one knows anything. Yeah, there may be some hybrid pieces of doo doo out there wreaking havoc, but don't come after my dog because of it. Go after the imbecils who are screwing up the breed.

 

Quick addendum to my last post.

 

Lance, your source was the San Francisco Chronicle. 2005. (I know I know, an article which cited the oh-so-conclusive CDC report) This article was written just a couple weeks after a 12 year old boy was killed by the family "Pit Bull" in San Francisco. Big Time prejudice here. Research the case. The 12 year old boy's dad was an idiot who was never there. He had NO PRIOR EDUCATION about "Pit Bulls" and wanted to make money off some pups so he bought a male and a female. He never put one second of training into them. Neighbors observed the children of the household "Hitting the dogs in the face" in the backyard but the dogs never did anything. The so called mother locked the 12 year old boy in the basement one day while she went to town. She told him the female dog was in heat and the male was protective so he had to stay in the basement until she got back. The boy ventured out of the basement. Got killed. Pit Bull attack? Or moron-mother attack? I say it's a "clear cut" case of peepeepoor parenting and slack animal guardianship. Let's let our 12 year old ride a stallion next to a mare in heat. Or play in traffic. Every headline has more detailed facts which should be researched. No emotion there.

[Pangloss]

I'm still waiting to see what people think the benefit of permitting these animals is.

 

And I'm still waiting to see actual evidence -- not mere statistical suggestions -- that banning these animals constitutes increased safety. This isn't seatbelts or airbags, it's genocide based on apathy, ignorance and a complete misunderstanding of the relationship of statistics and actual, cause-and-effect science.

 

Once the "final pit-bull solution" is achieved, the safety nazis will then proceed to demonize and then eliminate the next-most-dangerous animal, then the next-most-dangerous one after that. That's not even a slippery slope argument, folks -- it's what you're actually proposing. You're simply picking the top of the list and calling it dangerous, because it's at the top of the list.

 

This entire argument, and the embarassing fact of its embracement by ostensibly intelligent and logical individuals who claim an interest in science and scientific reasoning, is a perfect example of exactly what's wrong with our litigious and terrified society. If it's not "dangerous dogs" it's "humans cause global warming" or "you must use this drug immediately or you will die" (followed next week by "you must stop using this drug immediately or you will die").

 

You folks go right on telling each other that you're right, because, after all, you have statistics. What could possibly go wrong?

[GameBeth:)]

Pangloss: You'd better be careful or I might just give you a big fat smooch.

 

Here's a little food for thought also...

 

http://canineaggression.blogspot.com/

 

2007 - Fatal Attack Facts and Figures

 

2007 was a banner year for dog attacks. 2006 had been a record for the US with thirty-one fatalities, but we beat that in '07.

 

Here is the full update on the thirty-three fatal attacks by dogs in the US over the year 2007. Look through the list, and then we will talk about what we see.

 

1 - 1/12 – San Antonio, TX: 10 year old girl-Pit Bull-male-intact-chained.

 

2 - 1/16 – St Louis, MO: 69 year old woman-German Shepherd-intact male-not chained.

 

3 - 1/24 – Richmond, VA: 6 year old boy-2 Rottweillers-intact females-not chained.

 

4 - 1/29 – Escambia Co, AL: 18 month old girl-Rottweiller-intact male-tethered.

 

5 - 2/16 – DeKalb, GA: 2 year old girl-1 Pit Bull mix, 1 Boxer X Bullmastiff mix-intact male, female pregnant-not chained

 

6 - 3/20 – Friendswood, TX: 50 year old woman-1 Catahoula X American Bulldog mix, 1 Golden Retriever-intact males

 

7 - 3/23 – Combine, TX: 2 year old girl-2 Pit Bulls-intact male, female with puppies-chained.

 

8 - 4/23 – Dorchester County, SC: 18 month old boy-Pit Bull-female intact-chained but in laundry room.

 

9 - 5/13 – San Antonio, TX: 90 year old man-2 Pit Bulls-intact male, pregnant female-not chained.

 

10 - 5/25 – Ft. Meyers, FL: 71 year old woman-unknown-loose dogs

 

11 - 5/25 – El Paso, TX: 95 year old woman-Doberman, German Shepherd-both intact males-no chain

 

12 - 5/26 – Savannah, GA: 3 year old boy-1 Pit Bull, 1 Pit Bull mix, 1 Terrier mix-the two males, intact-not chained

 

13 - 6/17 – Connorsville, IN: 63 year old woman-Chow-neutered male-not chained

 

14 - 6/29 – Deltona, FL: 62 year old woman-Pit Bull-intact male-not chained

 

15 - 7/12 – Carroll Co, GA: 5 year old girl-Rottweiller-intact female-chained

 

16 - 7/23 – Cookeville, TN: 11 month old boy-2 Siberian Huskies-intact-no chain

 

17 - 7/29 – Bath, NY: 6 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact-chained

 

18 - 8/16 – Minneapolis, MN: 7 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact-chained with puppies in basement

 

19 – 8/18 – McMinn County, Tn: 15 month old boy-stray female mixed breed-intact with puppies, newly acquired with fresh puppies

 

20 - 8/ 31 - Dallas Texas: 3 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact male-not chained

 

21 – 9/14 – Warren, MI: 4 month old girl-Rottweiler-intact male, previous bite-not chained.

 

22, 23 - 9/13 – Iosco Township, MI: 56 year old woman, 91 year old man- 4 American Bulldogs-all intact-no chains

 

24 - 9/25 – Boger City, NC: 2 year old boy-(2) German Shepherds-chained-intact males

 

25 - 10/2 – Middleburg, FL: 42 year old woman-(2) Pit Bulls-neutered males-no chain.

 

26 - 10/7 – Parumph, NV: 73 year old woman-8 wolf hybrids-all intact, one female in season-not chained

 

27 – 10/15 – Pontotoc County, OK: 65 year old woman-mixed breeds- (5 to 7), breakdown unk. Loose pack.

 

28 - 11/01 – Phoenix, AZ: 4 year old girl-American Bulldog-male-neutered-not chained.

 

29 - 11/03 – Killeen, Texas: 11 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact male-No chain.

 

30 – 11/13 – Knoxville, TN: 21 year old woman-Pit Bulls-1 male, 1 female in estrus with puppies-all intact-not chained.

 

31 - 12/13-Dorchester County, SC: 2 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact male-chained.

 

32 – 12/17 – Rabun County, GA: 61 year old woman-Pit Bull-male-chained.

 

33 – 12/25 – San Bernadino County, CA – 45 year old woman-unknown pack of loose dogs.

 

Looking at the numbers here, a few things jump out. Twenty-six of thirty-three involved intact animals. Fifteen of thirty-three involved Pit Bulls. Ten of thirty-three involved chained animals. Does that mean intact Pit Bulls are chained up and waiting to kill? Not hardly.

 

What I see these numbers indicating, based on my on-scene investigations, is that irresponsible owners tend not to spay and neuter, tend to chain their animals out for extended times with little or no socialization, and that Pits are currently popular with owners who maintain their animals with less wisdom and care than most of us. Once again, it's the two-legged problem behind the four legger that precipitates the problems.

 

I also have to point out that eighteen of thirty-three were kids, all eleven or under, mostly under three. If ever there was proof of the need to supervise children with dogs - ALL DOGS - this should be it. Don't expect the DVD player and video games to keep them safe. Pay attention and be a parent, not just a piece of furniture.

[John Cuthber]

There are two factors to consider:

 

1. Yes, certain breeds were bred for fighting and can more easily be induced to be aggressive, or can act aggressively if accidentally provoked by un-dog-wise behaviour - e.g. by unsupervised or untrained children.

 

2. Certain aggressive types of humans choose the known "aggressive" breeds because they want to use them as weapons ot tools of intimidation.

 

 

There's not a lot we can do about 2 because some people are just nasty that way. However point one offers some hope- we could ban children.

 

"Why no outcry over banning bathtubs (since more babies drown in bathtubs each year than pit bulls have killed in the last 20)?"

Because bathtubs are useful. Every time I get asked what the benefit of having these dogs is, I get pretty much ignored. I get asked questions about it, but I don't get an answer.

As for "final pit-bull solution", and "the safety nazis " isn't there a theory that states that, once you are comparing those taking the other side of the argument to Hitler, it's because you don't have a valid point?

You certainly have yet to answer my question so I don't see evidence of the validity of your case.

[Mr Skeptic]

SkepticLance, you are so fond of pointing out how little percent genetic difference there is between humans. What do you thing the genetic variation is in Canis lupus familiaris? Perhaps we should consider banning all dogs?

[GameBeth:)]

"Why no outcry over banning bathtubs (since more babies drown in bathtubs each year than pit bulls have killed in the last 20)?"

Because bathtubs are useful. Every time I get asked what the benefit of having these dogs is, I get pretty much ignored. I get asked questions about it, but I don't get an answer.

You certainly have yet to answer my question so I don't see evidence of the validity of your case.

 

What's the benefit of having ANY dog then? Ban one, ban them all because they are all "useless." The American Pit Bull Terrier's "usefulness" can match -and exceed- that of just about any dog.

Pit Bull uses in Therapy, Service and other work

 

For hundreds of years the Pit Bull dog has been bred to have a human friendly disposition and an overwhelming sense of need to please their owners. Dogs of all breeds have been mans assistants since the beginning of domestication and this is an area the Pit Bull has great opportunity to excel.

 

Pit Bulls are currently used and suitable for all types of service work including drug detection, emergency rescue, service and therapy work, military service, and much more.

 

Pound for pound the American Pit Bull Terrier ( APBT ) is the strongest breed in existence and has a tenacity to meet its objectives as no other. Because the Pit Bull puts its own interest second to that of its owners the chances of it achieving a task are greater than that of other breeds.

 

The American Pit Bull Terrier ( APBT ) is additionally one of the most intelligent and easy to train breed of dogs. The trainer of the show dog Lassie has even remarked on how the Pit Bull is his choice of breed for training. This is due to the Pit Bulls ease of training, focus on task, desire to please their owner, and don't give up attitude.

 

Because the Pit Bull has such strength, intelligence, desire to please, and a don't give up attitude it would make a good choice as a disabled assistant service dog to those who are facing issues of mobility...

 

 

 

To read more: http://www.pitbullregistry.com/workingpitbulls.htm

[SkepticLance]

To GameBeth

 

The study I cited has been posted from two different sources, and the figures agree.

 

We are talking here about human fatalities. Not minor attacks. The result is a really thorough investigation. I do not really know how the US authorities react, but I would be most surprised if it is different to how they react here in NZ. Here, they seek the dog responsible, and capture it, and if the evidence is strong that this is the culprit, they kill it. The identification of breed is done by experts over a living dog, and there is a follow up autopsy on a dead dog. There is absolutely no room for doubt. This is an official investigation, and since it deals with a human death, it is far more thorough than a simple eye witness account.

 

You can argue all you like about the value of pit bulls, and claim they are worth 3 to 4 human deaths a year. That is a subjective and political and emotional argument. I cannot make a decision on that basis, since I like clear cut data. The clear cut data shows that pit bulls kill more people than other breeds. How that data is used in political decision making is another matter.

 

Mr Skeptic said

 

"What do you thing the genetic variation is in Canis lupus familiaris?"

 

Interesting academic point, though probably not pertinent to this discussion. I suspect a lot more genetic variation than within Homo sapiens, but I could be wrong.

 

As to destroying all dogs - I think you fully appreciate that is a silly suggestion. As to banning pit bulls - as I said, that is a subjective and political decision. The reality is that if such a decision is made, it would be not because of objective data, but because of public outcry if enough attacks happened. Politicians follow the vote.

[ParanoiA]

Why not just punish the owner appropriately? Charge them with the severity of the attack/bite?

 

Seems to me, once you start imprisoning them, the sudden glow of owning a Pit or similar will promptly dim. When folks have to put their own ass on the line after saying things like "with the right owner they're as playful as a kitten" then maybe they'll get the point...maybe.

 

Instead, all I see are nominal intentions to charge the owners with no real weight behind it. As long as that's true, I doubt they'll give a crap. Doesn't matter how many kids their dogs mangle, just so long as they have a bad ass dog...

[bahamutt99]

I quote :

 

"Attacks by pit bulls accounted for about a third of the 238 fatal dog attacks in the United States during a 20-year study, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

Did you see where I mentioned earlier that the CDC has stopped tracking bite fatalities by breed? People cannot identify a Pit Bull most of the time, so what we have are folks assuming any short-haired dog that bites must be one. That's not scientific study, its hysteria.

 

Every time I get asked what the benefit of having these dogs is, I get pretty much ignored. I get asked questions about it, but I don't get an answer.

 

I answered you on page 5. Is my post invisible? What a shame. I thought it was quite good.

[iNow]

Because bathtubs are useful. Every time I get asked what the benefit of having these dogs is, I get pretty much ignored. I get asked questions about it, but I don't get an answer.

 

That's because it's a loaded question with little bearing on the issue.

[Marty]

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Report on Fatal Dog Attacks...

 

Overwhelmingly this report is used by the media, council members and legislators in an attempt to prove a case for passing breed specific legislation. So I feel in necessary to set the record straight on this report for all to see.

 

 

Here are some quotes from the CDC and Doctors involved in the studies explaining how the report is INACCURATE:

 

Procedure: We collected data from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and media accounts related to dog bite attacks and fatalities, using methods from previous studies (CDC Special Report on breeds involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, September 2000).

 

Ideally, breed-specific bite rates would be calculated to compare breeds and quantify the relative dangerousness of each breed. For example, 10 fatal attacks by Breed X relative to a population of 10,000 X’s (1/1,000) implies a greater risk than 100 attacks by Breed Y relative

to a population of 1,000,000 Y’s (0.1/1,000). Without consideration of the population sizes, Breed Y would be perceived to be the more dangerous breed on the basis of the number of fatalities. (CDC Special Report on breeds involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, September 2000). NOTE: The CDC study does NOT use population as a factor.

 

Considering only bites that resulted in fatalities, because they are more easily ascertained than nonfatal bites, the numerator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF rate requires a complete accounting of human DBRF as well as an accurate determination of the breeds involved. Numerator data may be biased for 4 reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are likely underestimated; prior work suggests the approach we used identifies only 74% of actual cases.1,2 Second, to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy

than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed. Third, because identification of a dog’s breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression. Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to be counted more than once. (CDC Special Report on breeds involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, September 2000)

 

Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner related issues. For example, less responsible owners or owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds. (CDC Special Report on breeds involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, September 2000)

 

(after 1998, the CDC stopped tracking which breeds of dogs are involved in fatal attacks; according to a CDC spokesperson, that information is no longer considered to be of discernable value) (Pit Bulls in the City, Indy Tails July 2005)

 

"There are enormous difficulties in collecting dog bite data," Dr. Gilchrist said. She explained that no centralized reporting system for dog bites exists, and incidents are typically relayed to a number of entities, such as the police, veterinarians, animal control, and emergency rooms, making meaningful analysis nearly impossible. (CDC releases epidemiologic survey of dog bites in 2001, September 2003)

 

When multiple dogs of the same breed were involved in the same fatal episode, that breed was counted only once (eg, if 10 Akitas attacked and killed a person, that breed was counted once rather than 10 times). When crossbred dogs were involved in a fatality, each suspected breed in the dog’s lineage was counted once for that episode. Second, we tallied data by dog. When multiple dogs of the same breed were involved in a single incident, each

dog was counted individually. We allocated crossbred dogs into separate breeds and counted them similarly (eg, if 3 Great Dane-Rottweiler crossbreeds attacked a person, Great Dane was counted 3 times under crossbred, and Rottweiler was counted 3 times under crossbred). Data are presented separately for dogs identified as pure- and crossbred. (CDC Special Report on breeds involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, September 2000)

 

Here are some quotes from the CDC and Doctors involved in the studies concerning Breed Specific Legislation:

 

When a specific breed of dog has been selected for stringent control, 2 constitutional questions concerning dog owners’ fourteenth amendment rights have been raised: first, because all types of dogs may inflict injury to people and property, ordinances addressing only 1 breed of dog are argued to be underinclusive and, therefore, violate owners’ equal protection rights; and second, because identification of a dog’s breed with the certainty necessary to impose sanctions on the dog’s owner is prohibitively difficult, such ordinances have been argued as unconstitutionally vague, and, therefore, violate due process.

 

Another concern is that a ban on a specific breed might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply turn to another breed for the same qualities they sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression easily fostered). Breed-specific legislation does not

address the fact that a dog of any breed can become

dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive.

 

Other risk factors included dogs who roamed the neighborhood or dogs who were tethered. In other words, it appeared that the negligence of human guardians was a higher risk factor than the breed of the dog. learned breed-specific legislation is not the way to tackle the issue of dog bites,” said Dr. Julie Gilchrist of the CDC Injury Center in Atlanta, Georgia. “Instead, we should look at the people with those dogs responsible for the bites.” (Pit Bulls in the City, Indy Tails July 2005)

 

 

A couple of my personal comments on the CDC report and others like it on why they are fictional at best!

 

On the CDC report they have broken it down into a couple of sections, Purebred and Crossbred. Under Purebred they list "Pit bull-type" dog, this is NOT a Purebred dog? They use that very same header under Crossbred which invalidates this report.

 

Using a term like "pit bull-type" would indicate that any number of breeds (as there are 20+ that are mistaken as pit bulls) and mixed breeds could have been grouped under these counts.

 

As for Crossbred or mixed breed dogs it is my opinion that they need to all be grouped under "mixed breed". When it comes to mixed breed dogs, it's virtually impossible to determine the breeds. If in fact you do know specificly what breeds the dog is (which is rare) how would one know which "breed" did the biting?

 

In the first bullet point they admit to using, "media accounts". That alone tells us this report is nothing more than a waste of paper. The media is certainly NOT a place to gather information for a statistical study. There are many incidents that are reported as X then turn out to be Y. Many cases of mistaken breed identity or out right lies. Here are a few: http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm

 

Furthmore, this report was a collaboration of the CDC and the AVMA both of which are against breed specific legislation!

 

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/CDCReport/CDCReport.htm

[DrDNA]

What's the benefit of having ANY dog then? Ban one, ban them all because they are all "useless." ]

You are not really advocating that. But if all dog owners behaved in a similar manner as the "stereotypical" pit bull owner, you would probably see a loud and clear call to ban all dogs.

 

For hundreds of years the Pit Bull dog has been bred to have a human friendly disposition and an overwhelming sense of need to please their owners. Dogs of all breeds have been mans assistants since the beginning of domestication and this is an area the Pit Bull has great opportunity to excel.

Right. An overwhelming sense of need to please their owners. Which has at least added tothe problem we are discussing here today.

 

Pit Bulls are currently used and suitable for all types of service work including drug detection, emergency rescue, service and therapy work, military service, and much more.

Do you have ANY evidence or data that would support the use of pit bulls over the other breeds that are generally used for these tasks or other tasks associated with working breeds? Eg, sled dog ability over a husky or malimute; drug detection or tracking ability over a blood hound; indicate and/or flush game birds better than setter/pointer or a spaniel, ability to herd sheep...etc? Anything?

 

Pound for pound the American Pit Bull Terrier ( APBT ) is the strongest breed in existence and has a tenacity to meet its objectives as no other. Because the Pit Bull puts its own interest second to that of its owners the chances of it achieving a task are greater than that of other breeds. ........................This is due to the Pit Bulls ease of training, focus on task, desire to please their owner, and don't give up attitude.

I could not have stated it better. What we have here is, compared to other dog breeds, a focused, tenacious, exceedingly strong killing machine. Stronger pound per pound than any other dog breed in existance and with a don't give up attitude that refuses to quit until it has achieved its objective. Which has resulted in the maining and death of other dogs and even helpless human beings.

Is that about right?

[Marty]

Humane Society of the United States...

 

If you've never read this I think you should...

 

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136

 

Do you have ANY evidence or data that would support the use of pit bulls over the other breeds that are generally used for these tasks or other tasks associated with working breeds? Eg, sled dog ability over a husky or malimute; drug detection or tracking ability over a blood hound; indicate and/or flush game birds better than setter/pointer or a spaniel, ability to herd sheep...etc? Anything?

How about this one...

 

http://www.lawdogsusa.org/home.html

[DrDNA]

Are we discussing conspiracy theories involving the Humane Society now???

 

From the other link.....

LawDogsUSA is a 501©3 (pending) nonprofit organization whose sole purpose is to provide law enforcement agencies with high quality narcotics, explosives and arson detection dogs - free of charge.

 

In our first years of operation, LawDogsUSA has successfully donated dogs now serving as narcotics and explosives detection dogs at U.S. ports of entry, on the Washington State ferry system, with the Washington State Patrol, and city and county K9 units.

 

Our detection dog prospects are extensively screened and only happy, extremely friendly, hard working, physically sound and highly talented dogs are placed. All dogs are purebred American pit bulls. All dogs are altered, vaccinated, microchipped; we x-ray hips and offer a veterinarian health certificate on each dog we place.

 

We have found the American pit bull to be superior as a narcotics and explosives detection dog. Please note: due to their inherent "people friendly" nature, we do NOT offer American pit bulls as "biting" (patrol) dogs. LawDogsUSA offers sweet natured, friendly detection dogs only.

 

You can assess how professional a law enforcement agency is by how they approach "racial profiling"; do they talk the talk, or walk the walk? Do they say they are against "profiling" but practice it in their K9 kennels? Many trainers who have only worked with European sheepdog breeds haven't a clue about the best kept secret in modern detection work...

 

Is this data or evidence to support the use of Pit Bulls in law enforcement over other breeds that are generally chosen for law enforcement (eg, German Shepards)?

NO

 

THANK YOU!

 

To the members of the Working Pit Bull Terrier Club of America for donating half of the proceeds from their 2007 National Event to LawDogsUSA!

 

 

Is this a strongly biased site promoting Pit Bulls?

YES

 

That is certainly a thought process unbecoming of an intellectual. I've trained horses for years and seen some downright nasty injuries caused by horses who were actually intending to injure the human involved. I've seen people injured by all different races of humans. So should I conclude that there are certain breeds of horses and races of humans which are more dangerous than others?

 

Are you attacking my intellect, horses, or other humans?

[iNow]

DrDNA - IYO, What benefit would come from an outright ban on this one breed?

 

 

Forest for the trees, friend.

[dichotomy]

Pit bulls were blamed for killing 76 people, or 32 percent.

 

About 500,000 to 800,000 dog bites require medical treatment annually.

 

 

OK, 32 percent of 800,000 would mean that the worst case scenario is something like 256,000 pitbull bites requiring medical treatment annually. This seems fairly unacceptable to me. Primarily because we have substantial control of our own bath and bathing habits, but we have little control of someone elses, out of control dog. Although, those lion's claw baths do scare me.

 

Do you have ANY evidence or data that would support the use of pit bulls over the other breeds that are generally used for these tasks or other tasks associated with working breeds? Eg, sled dog ability over a husky or malimute; drug detection or tracking ability over a blood hound; indicate and/or flush game birds better than setter/pointer or a spaniel, ability to herd sheep...etc? Anything?

 

I'll bet they are excellent for hunting wild pigs in an environment without humans present, excluding their owners of course! Like any tool, they need to be regulated so that they are used in their intended way.

 

We could start asking why cats like tigers are not permitted to run around suburban backyards. Tigers have killed less people than pitbulls in suburbia, why not make them public domain?

 

Why not just punish the owner appropriately? Charge them with the severity of the attack/bite?

 

This is the only way to go. If you own an animal that kills, then you should be charged with manslaughter, or maybe even murder. Then one's reasoning would be amplified before choosing to buy a particular dog.

 

DrDNA - IYO, What benefit would come from an outright ban on this one breed?

 

err...

lower rate of dog related deaths/injuies.

Lower medical insurance premiums/costs.

lower general anxiety when a dog that is larger than a fox terrier approaches

[iNow]

Lower medical insurance premiums/costs.

You really think so?