Experiment: Pit Bull Interaction & Attack Poll

[Pangloss]

I think thomast1777 has a valid point. The purpose of the quote he was replying to was to support the very next sentence, in which dichotomy actually stated that it was "probably" the reason for higher fatality numbers.

 

But the real point that I thought thomast1777 made well was that so much of this argument is based on unsubstantiated belief and emotion. Granted this happens on both sides, but this is a science forum and we ought to be able to do better than that. I feel like this thread almost belongs in Pseudoscience and Speculations, for all the legitimate scientific content it contains.

[DrDNA]

This was over in the old livestock discussion....which actually started this discussion some months back.

It is about the Clifton reports. In an effort to return to logic and evidence and satisfy is some part the pleas for evidence and data, here.......:

 

"For every fatal dog bite in the United States, there are 230,000 bites that are not treated by a physician.

................

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

 

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

 

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

 

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

The financial impact of dog bites

Dog attack victims in the US suffer over $1 billion in monetary losses every year. ("Take the bite out of man's best friend." State Farm Times, 1998;3(5):2.) That $1 billion estimate might be low -- an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that, in 1995, State Farm paid $70 million on 11,000 claims and estimated that the total annual insurance cost for dog bites was about $2 billion. (Voelker R. "Dog bites recognized as public health problem." JAMA 1997;277:278,280.)

 

According to the Insurance Information Institute, dog bites cost insurers $345.5 million in 2002, $321.6 million in 2003, $317.2 million in 2005, and $351.4 in 2006. The number of claims paid by insurers was 20,800 in 2002, but fell to 15,000 in 2005. The insurance payment for the average dog bite claim was $16,600 in 2002, but rose to $21,200 in 2005. Liability claims accounted for approximately 4 percent of homeowners claims. Dog bite claims in 2005 accounted for about 15 percent of liability claims dollars paid under homeowners insurance policies."

 

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

 

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

 

To summarize, of 2209 dog attacks doing bodily harm, 1110 were by pit bull terriers. This is not counting pit bull mixes.[b]"Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are. They are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, [/b]a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog."

 

 

"In the German shepherd mauling, killing, and maiming cases I have

recorded, there have almost always been circumstances of duress: the dog was deranged from being kept alone on a chain for prolonged periods without human contract, was starving, was otherwise severely abused, was

protecting puppies, or was part of a pack including other dangerous dogs.

None of the German shepherd attacks have involved predatory behavior on the part of an otherwise healthy dog.

 

 

[talking about wolf and wolf hybrids here] more opportunity to kill and maim than members of any other breeds except pit bull terriers and Rottweilers, each of whom may outnumber wolf hybrids by about 10 to 1."

 

Unless you don't believe these numbers, I personally don't see a case for Pit bulls or wolve hybrids. Again, that is my opinion, but I think you will agree that the data does support it.

 

Since out of 2209 dog attacks doing bodily harm, 1110 were by Pitbull terriers..... not counting pit bull mixes,

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Atta...%20Clifton.pdf

it is clear that the pro Pitbull camp must make an assumption if they are to have ANY hope to claim that Pitbulls are nice by nature (breeding) and only dangerous because of bad nurturing (abuse or mishandling). The assumption that would have to be made is the majority of Pitbull owners (most?) are sadistic jerks that participate in acts of animal cruelity (as compared to owners of various other breeds). Otherwise, all the Pitbulls would be friendly and there would be very few Pitbull attacks. Are you willing to make that assumption?

 

This was the report I posted. What you posted was selective data. What you have is Clifton's data.

 

However, on the main site we find this:

 

"The disagreement among experts, and the dearth of recent statistics, were two of the reasons why an appellate court for the State of Ohio ruled in 2006 that a pair of breed-based dangerous dog laws were unconstitutional. City of Toledo v. Tellings, 5th Dist. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975 (Ohio App. 2006). The supreme court of the state accepted this case for review in August 2006 (110 Ohio St.3d 1435). The court of appeals began its analysis by noting:

 

Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society. [Citing State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168.] ... As scientific information advances and becomes available, courts have a duty to reconsider issues and make decisions which are supported by the actual evidence presented, instead of relying on "common knowledge" and opinion generated by newspaper sensationalism and hearsay, rather than accurate, scientific evidence. [Par.] As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late 1980's and early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. ... The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds."

 

The court then stated that,

 

Our review of the record reveals no current statistics since 1996 were presented to support the notion that pit bulls have continued to be involved in a "disproportionate number" of attacks or fatalities. In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional."

 

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

 

Now, we have some trouble with the data. From the paper: "Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from press accounts since 1982, this table covers only attacks by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets. Due to the exclusion of dogs whose breed type whose breed type may be uncertain, this is by no means a complete list of fatal and otherwise serious dog attacks."

 

Again, we aren't given the total number of attacks to determine how many unknowns there are.

 

The statistics are skewed toward "bodily harm" and thus the larger breeds of dogs. As Clifton notes:

"If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed"

 

So, other breeds may attack humans more, but they don't do as much damage and aren't reflected in the Clifton study. Selective data.

 

 

 

Actually, the assumption that the majority of pitbull owners train their dogs to fight is not necessary. Yes, you have 2209 attacks doing bodily harm. How many dogs are there? How many pit bulls?

 

If there are 100,000 pit bulls (at one per owner), then only 1% of the owners would be training them to attack to satisfy the hypothesis that the danger from pit bulls comes mostly from training rather than breeding.

 

Now, since pit bulls ARE used in dog fighting and now have a reputation for fighting, having 1% of owners train them for fighting is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

 

As it turns out there are 4.8 million pit bulls. So, to have 1,000 pit bull attacks, you only have to have 0.02% if owners to be bad. That's a very small percentage.

[Psyber]

What I have found, over years in dog showing and obedience training before I gave it up to do other things, is that nasty people have nasty dogs, regardless of breed. However, there are breeds that do have risky tendencies and need careful handling.

 

For example Borzoi tend to be more irritable and snappy than some other sight hounds like Scottish Deerhounds or Irish Wolfhounds. Wolfies tend to be soft and cuddly, but protective, but I have met one that made me nervous - so did his alcoholic and nasty owner.

 

Dalmatians can be "very" anything - whichever way they go it is with enthusiasm. Prior to lifting the ban on importing new blood into Australia, local German Shepherds tended to be nervous "fear-biters". This has changed now there is a broader genetic base.

 

Genetics and training/example both play a part - in dogs and humans.

[DrDNA]

How unnerving it must seem, how humiliating, to be a professional breed-basher this week! Spend years stoking the urban legend machine, and what happens? Famous athlete gets busted for dogfighting, his "ticking time bombs" turn out to be good dogs, and the news is all about friendly pit bulls nestled in the loving arms of their foster moms and dads, or playing happily with other dogs. Playing with children, even.

That is correct. I disagree with you, therefore I am an evil "professional breed basher" and live in a cave. I eat innocent children too! Meanwhile Pit Bull owners everywhere are nestled with their loving Pit Bulls with visions of lollipops dancing in their heads.

You are right. It is unnerving.

 

It's almost enough to make a person feel sorry for Merritt Clifton. Almost.

 

Clifton is the editor, and I use the term loosely, who lists the "chox mix," the “Dauschund," the “East Highland terrier,” the “Weimaeaner,” the “Buff Mastiff,” etc. among dogs that bite: these are "clearly identified" animals, he states, labeled by people "with evident expertise." ["Clearly identified" and "evident expertise" also mean that the blue heeler, the Australian blue heeler, the Queensland heeler and the Australian cattle dog are described as separate breeds in Clifton's odd tabulation of dog bites, and mixes are lumped together with dogs labeled purebreds.]

It is not 100% perfect (NO study is) and disagrees with your feelings and emotions. So let's use the most comprehensive and accurate study that has ever been done as accident paper for the Pit Bull?? It's better than that. Come on.

 

Here he is on CNN, talking about pit bulls in general and the Vick dogs in particular:

Considering the risk the fighting dogs pose to shelters, potential owners and other animals, "they just don't have a chance," Clifton said.

"You can compare it to what happens with exotic cats and people who keep tigers in their backyard. It's not the tiger's fault, but you are still on the menu. They are victims, but you do have to treat them as animals that belong in maximum security."

Imagine how ignorant and how biased you'd have to be to make that sort of remark.

Yes, imagine how ignorant and biased I must be, because I view that statement as being fairly accurate. Dogs (any breed) trained for fighting are too dangerous to keep around other dogs (I'm not even going to mention people).

I'm not sure if you are advocating people keeping tigers in cages and/in back yards or not. But if you are, let the lions and tigers and bears oh my roam free where they belong. What kind of a cruel sick person keeps a tiger in a cage and/or their back yard?. Its not for the tiger's benefit or best interest, that is for certain.

Probably similar personalities at work here.

Forget duplicate ads. Forget multiple references to Lassie and Rin-Tin-Tin and Balto. Forget short stories, movie and book reviews, and breed names used figuratively or used in advertising. Forget the regional, racial and socioeconomic factors that affect what goes into a newspaper. And most of all, forget that Clifton failed to search for bulldogs and bull terriers: the two names most closely associated with the "pit bull" breed in the first half of the 20th century. Set all that aside, and the bias and ignorance still loom large. "Not a shred of historical evidence!" Not a shred, dammit!

 

Uhm. Who cares about the first half of the 20th century in reference to the dangers associated with Pit Bulls or Pit Bull owners? I certainly do not. Clifton's study dealt with the later half of the 20th century (1982 to 1996? or something). If he had used old data, then of course that would be the problem.

The first half of the 20th centruy is just about as relevent as Spot in Our Gang is.....zero.

 

How is it that Merritt Clifton -- who wouldn't recognize scientific research if he tripped over it, who thinks German shepherds are bred to "herd," who can't be troubled to edit his spelling errors or find out what dogs are really bred for, who has [as far as anyone knows] never cared for or trained or even patted a pit bull, who has written about "the custom" [known only to him, apparently] "of docking pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized," and who writes that "temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant," since virtually all pit bulls are "bad moments" waiting to happen -- how is it that Clifton has become an "expert" on the breed?

 

Here we go. You are claiming Clifton is an idiot at least in part because he claims that the German Shepard was bred for tending sheep? Well, you must know more than everyone else, including the AKC.

Derived from the old breeds of herding and farm dogs, and associated for centuries with man as servant and companion, the German Shepherd Dog ....................the parent club of the breed founded in 1899 in Germany, the cult of the Shepherd spread rapidly from about 1914 onward in many parts of the world. http://www.akc.org/breeds/german_shepherd_dog/history.cfm

Of course now they are bred to the club (eg, AKC and others) standard which is more about the stance, shape of head, etc.

Is this what you are doing? Trying to divide and confuse based on "were" and "are"?

[dichotomy]

is that nasty people have nasty dogs, regardless of breed.

 

I assume this to be generally correct from evidence I have personally observed. Culture/training for a pup that is a couple of weeks old, is what really matters more often than not. Although, in suburban surrounds, I'd still much prefer a toy breed dog than one that had a bite like a bear trap!

 

 

Genetics and training/example both play a part - in dogs and humans.

 

Yep. Dog with genetic large mass + snippy tendency + immature/nervous owner = high probability of big damage to someone in a short space of time.

 

 

I find it absolutely depressing to think that everyone assumes I am some kind of degenerate because I own one of these dogs.

 

I did say tend to be immature and/or nervous. You are correct of course that this is not always the case. But in my experience it is the rule rather than the exception.

I have watched the frequency of Pitbull, Pitbull crosses and related breeds drop off in popularity over the last 10 to 15 years. There where certainly more about in my general locality 10 years or so back. But the demographic has changed alot in that time aswell. So I'm still unsure if Pitbulls/crosses where a fashion trend or if more mature people have moved into my locality?

 

dichotomy actually stated that it was "probably" the reason for higher fatality numbers.

 

 

That's right, "probably" and not "definitely". My evidence is formed from my personal observations, if I can find a large scale study that finds that human culture and canine conditioning are the primary reasons for an increase in dog attacks, then I'll post it.

[iNow]

If anecdotal evidence is all we are using, then I've never met an aggressive pit bull... at least not one that I didn't get to start licking my face after a few seconds.

 

Again...

 

Why are so many people trying to legislate their fears and axieties into my choices and freedoms?

 

I should be able to own a fu(king wolverine if I wanted one... As long as I was responsible with it's keeping and kept people away.

 

Oh... wait a minute... I CAN do that already!

 

 

Existing laws are plenty, and a ban would add little or nothing. I think everyone's angst comes from the lack of enforcement of EXISTING laws.

[dichotomy]

I should be able to own a fu(king wolverine if I wanted one... As long as I was responsible with it's keeping and kept people away.

 

I should be able to own a bull african elephant if I wanted one. But, should I be allowed to? Where do we draw the line? We are reactive creatures like all others, we start drawing lines as permanent disabilities and death rates escalate to what we deem as unacceptable. What is unacceptable is a matter for each locality I suppose.

 

Existing laws are plenty, and a ban would add little or nothing. I think everyone's angst comes from the lack of enforcement of EXISTING laws.

 

For a start if laws can't be effectively enforced then a ban seems like the reasonable step to take until laws can be enforced. If a ban can't be enforced, then you have a real problem.

Well, time will tell in Hobsons Bay if bans will do little. IMO, bans will greatly benefit children and small dogs playing in public parks for example.

 

"in Victoria American pit bull terriers must be leashed and muzzled in public and cannot be taken outside an owner's premises by anyone under 17 years. Warning signs must be displayed at all entrances to premises where the dog is kept, and no more than two American pit bull terriers can be kept without council permission. Some councils impose even stricter rules. For example, Hobsons Bay has banned new registrations of American pit bull terriers and other restricted breeds."

taken from -

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/HansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC20050504050

[iNow]

So, basically you're saying that... since existing laws fail, we should make the laws tougher in some childish optimistic hope that the "more extreme" law will have the effect of reaching the outcome you desire?

 

How can I say this politely?

 

 

I disagree.

[dichotomy]

So, basically you're saying that... since existing laws fail, we should make the laws tougher in some childish optimistic hope that the "more extreme" law will have the effect of reaching the outcome you desire?

 

How can I say this politely?

 

 

I disagree.

 

Originally Posted by iNow

I think everyone's angst comes from the lack of enforcement of EXISTING laws.

 

As you stated above, it maybe a lack of enforcement. If existing laws do not work then they do need to be toughened or modified to reduce dog attacks/fatalities. Nothing childish about that, and if it is seen as childish then children have a more solid logic than some adults. What would you do?

 

How can I say this politely?

 

And why would you want to respond in any other way except for a rational polite way? You'd be a politician and not a true scientist if you did.

 

Come on you must have better bait than that?!

[ParanoiA]

I should be able to own a bull african elephant if I wanted one. But, should I be allowed to? Where do we draw the line? We are reactive creatures like all others, we start drawing lines as permanent disabilities and death rates escalate to what we deem as unacceptable. What is unacceptable is a matter for each locality I suppose.

 

We draw the line when your pet hurts someone or their property. We punish you for it and confiscate your animal that you can't control. Simple really. Why do we need to have laws enumerating every single thing we can or cannot do when we already have a natural check and balance system for this?

 

You can't be objective, nor "celebrate our differences" when you dismiss innocence until proven guilty, by advocating the arbitrary wholesale removal of a right based on other's previous behavior. Not that you are saying that necessarily, but when you start talking about "drawing lines" - that spells legislation to me.

[iNow]

Originally Posted by iNow

I think everyone's angst comes from the lack of enforcement of EXISTING laws.

 

As you stated above, it maybe a lack of enforcement. If existing laws do not work then they do need to be toughened or modified to reduce dog attacks/fatalities.

 

No. That does not follow. It's a non-sequitur.

 

If enforcement is the issue, then changing the laws does nothing. If existing laws are not being ENFORCED, the the appropriate next step would be to put the proper structure, logistics, and operations in place such that they ARE enforced and execution of those laws becomes viable.

 

If the current laws are not adequately enforced, why do you think that changing the law itself will somehow change how and if they get applied?

 

 

 

 

You can't be objective, nor "celebrate our differences" when you dismiss innocence until proven guilty, by advocating the arbitrary wholesale removal of a right based on other's previous behavior.

Very well said.

[thomast1777]

This was over in the old livestock discussion....which actually started this discussion some months back.

It is about the Clifton reports. In an effort to return to logic and evidence and satisfy is some part the pleas for evidence and data, here.......:

 

 

Since you have been posting articles that back up your ideas up, I will do the same.

 

The Clifton report you cited from is known as being an unreliable source of information.

 

For example:

 

Merritt Clifton’s tabulation of dog bite articles is incomplete, inaccurate and badly edited. Readers have no way to access the original news stories and follow-up articles; breeds of dogs aren’t accurately recorded; and there is a significant discrepancy between press accounts of dog attacks and actual hospital data.

 

In a single year [1994], for example, at least 6,000 people were hospitalized in the U.S. as a result of dog attacks, according to the CDC. Clifton, by contrast, claims that during the 24-year period covered by his study there were a total of 2,209 “[dog] attacks doing bodily harm” in the U.S. and Canada.

 

The "chox mix," "Dauschund," "East Highland terrier," "Weimaeaner" and "Buff Mastiff" are a few of the breeds identified by people of "evident expertise" in this report. Blue heelers, Queensland heelers, Australian cattle dogs and Australian blue heelers are listed as separate breeds. And Clifton's unique analysis of German shepherd behavior has little, if anything in common with the GSD bred for companionship, show and protection sports for the past hundred years.

 

http://dogbitesinformationandstatistics.blogspot.com/2007/11/wheres-clifton-report.html

 

And..

 

Merritt Clifton’s study is actually a list of severe dog bites. The title itself ["Dog attack deaths and maimings"] is misleading, since the list is a compilation of "dog attacks doing bodily harm," including some that are fatal or disabling. Clifton’s only source is the press: specifically, press accounts of dog bites requiring “extensive hospitalization” [never defined, so this might include anything from treatment of sepsis to multiple surgeries] and caused by “clearly identified” animals. [“[T]his table covers only attacks by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets.”] The numbers aren’t organized by year or location, and readers have no way to access the original press accounts and follow-up articles. There is a disclaimer of sorts --- “dogs whose breed type may be uncertain” are excluded, as are police and security dogs and dogs trained to fight --- leading logical readers to assume that the list must include virtually all severe bites by dogs of identifiable breeds.

 

Clifton’s report never mentions that there is a huge discrepancy between actual hospital records and press accounts of dog attacks --- between relatively objective data, in other words, and highly subjective reporting and editing with an eye to selling papers. The report fails to acknowledge that a number of factors are involved whenever any dog bites. The report includes statements about dog behavior which have no basis in science, and statements about breed-specific traits which bear no relation to the actual history, behavior or modern development of the breed being discussed [in this case, the German shepherd]. Clifton’s concluding statements regarding the inevitability of attacks by certain dogs are impossible to substantiate, and as a result seem simply prejudiced and inflammatory.

***

 

http://lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/2007/08/dangerous-breeds-dog-bite-statistics.html

 

 

 

Regarding CDC reports:

 

The CDC has never issued a report or press release naming "the types of dogs most likely to bite," nor has the CDC ever released a list of dogs they consider "highest risk."

 

From the CDC:

 

"There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."

 

 

"There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury. Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete. [source: AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression]

 

http://dogbitesinformationandstatistics.blogspot.com/2007/11/dogs-most-likely-to-bite.html

 

About CDC Bite Stats

Those looking to pass breed-specific legislation (BSL) have often cited Centers for Disease Control dog bite statistics* to supposedly “prove” that particular breeds are inherently vicious, or at least more vicious than other breeds. One report in particular, “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 has been cited frequently because it appears to show “pit bulls” as being responsible for nearly one-third (31.13%) of human fatalities over the twenty year period from 1979-1998. Certainly such eyebrow-raising findings merit closer scrutiny. But as you’ll see, the statistics are largely inaccurate for a multitude of reasons.

 

The statistics which appear to show a high rate of attacks due to alleged “pit bull-type dogs” are full of inaccuracy simply because any dog that can pass for a “pit bull” will be called a “pit bull” by the media under the guise of if-it-bleeds-it-leads to which the CDC alludes:

 

“..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.” (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000, p. 838).

 

With the knowledge that the CDC statistics are inaccurate, and the methodology by which the statistics acquired flawed, we can easily begin to poke holes in those arguments which BSL supporters use to make their claims about “pit bulls” as dangerous.

 

The biggest flaw in CDC statistics, and certainly the one that causes the most grief, is that the “breed” categorized by the CDC as “pit bull-type dog” does not exist. Nor is “pit bull” a breed recognized by any breed registry. Housed beneath the catch-all designation “pit bull” are at least twenty (and as many as 35) different breeds of dog. Lump twenty breeds of dog together as one breed and you will certainly have what looks like a breed problem as relates to dog bites and dog-bite-related fatalities! What you’ll also have is a massive skewing of the statistical data rendering the findings erroneous and misleading. Worse, a majority of the CDC’s statistics were taken from media reports of dog bites or fatalities which are notorious for being inaccurate, particularly as regards “pit bulls.” And yes, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are often referred to by the slang term “pit bull,” but were these the actual breeds responsible for the attacks? Probably not since a slew of other breeds of dog — like Presa Canarios, Cane Corsos, Spanish Alanos, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Bandogs, Dogues Brasileiros, Dogo Argentino, Guatemalan Bull Terriers, American Bulldogs, Boxers, Bull Mastiffs, Bull Terriers, English Bulldogs, and even Labradors, Rottweilers, Akitas, and Chow Chows — have also been labeled “pit bulls.”

 

The problem with the “pit bull-type dog” category highlights another problem with breed statistics which is that it is quite difficult for the average person (and sometimes even experts) to identify a breed of dog accurately, especially under extreme stress such as occurs during an attack (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000, p. 838). As such, many victim and bystander reports are specious. For instance, a person could be bitten or killed by a Labrador, and if the victim or witnesses claim it was a Rottweiler then the breed would most likely be reported accordingly. In other words, breed identification is often subjective. With the media reporting a majority of the time on “pit bulls” and Rottweilers, which breeds of dog do you think will be cited as responsible most often by victims of dog bites? The media has worked the idea of “pit bulls” and Rottweilers as vicious into the collective conscious and in turn victims of dog bites often draw on this erroneous media reporting to finger “pit bulls” and Rottweilers as culpable for a majority of dog attacks.

 

Much like the media, the CDC is also unable to get their reporting correct, but the CDC at least has an excuse: missing population data. In addition to breed misidentification, the CDC statistics are inaccurate because they are not based on “reliable breed-specific population data” (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000, p. 838). Certainly Rottweilers and “pit bulls” appear more prone to bite since they top the CDC list of most bites, but the probability of them to bite may be the same as any other breed since these dogs could just simply be more popular. The more dogs of a breed you have in existence, the more bites you would have just as a matter of course. However, their propensity to bite would remain unchanged. And as already stated, it is impossible to get accurate population data for “pit bulls” in particular since they are not a breed.

 

Identification difficulties aside, there are other fundamental problems with the CDC bite statistics. Despite what BSL proponents believe, there are mitigating factors involved with bully breed (if these are what is meant by the use of the slang term “pit bull”) dog bites specifically:

 

“…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” (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000, p. 839).

 

What the CDC means by “owner-related issues,” at least for bully breeds, is the tradition of exploitation that they have endured since their inception. Owners of these dogs, particularly now, who use them for “street” dog fighting often torture bullies to make them vicious (and a lot of times these dogs still won’t fight or turn mean). Worse still is if/when they lose fights, these dogs, who’ve been tortured their whole lives, are often brutally killed. The “lucky” ones find their way to Animal Control where they are usually humanely euthanized. For some of these dogs, that is a best-case scenario.

 

However, for all breeds there appear to be several overarching factors which affect any dog’s inclination to bite:

 

“…sex, early experience, socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), reproductive status, quality of ownership and supervision, and victim behavior” (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000, p. 839).

 

But bullies have all these factors affecting them in addition to being the most exploited breeds of dog in existence. Still, it is a testament to the quality of the breed that even though many are unsocialized, tortured, and otherwise ill-used, very few are human-aggressive. I hesitate even to include abuse as a factor since even when they are abused most bullies are incredibly friendly and loving towards humans. You can thank over a hundred years of proper breeding for this trait.

 

 

Bullies have become easy scapegoats for politicians who can’t or won’t face up to the real issues, like gangs and drugs. As such, municipalities have begun passing breed-specific legislation (BSL) but,

 

“…breed-specific ordinances raise several practical issues. For optimal enforcement, there would need to be an objective method of determining the breed of a particular dog. Pedigree analysis (a potentially time-consuming and complicated effort) combined with DNA testing (also time-consuming and expensive) is the closest to an objective standard for conclusively identifying a dog’s breed. Owners of mixed-breed or unregistered (ie, by a kennel club) dogs have no way of knowing whether their dog is one of the types identified and whether they are required to comply with breed-specific ordinances. Thus, law enforcement personnel have few means for positively determining a dog’s breed and deciding whether owners are in compliance or violation of laws” (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000, p. 839).

 

In addition to the difficulty of determining a dog’s breed (and DNA testing for dog breed is a controversial issue with the accuracy of the results in serious doubt), BSL also brings up constitutional issues. Under the 14th amendment, states cannot deprive citizens of their right to life, liberty, or property. Because our pets are our property, we have the right to due process afforded us under the 14th amendment (and under the 5th amendment should the federal government try to pass BSL nationwide). Due Process was incorporated into the constitution to ensure that “no one is deprived of life, liberty, or property arbitrarily and without opportunity to affect the judgment or result. This minimum protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual’s deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature…”

 

The 14th amendment also contains what is called an equal protection clause, which provides that, “…no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In terms of BSL, equal protection under the 14th amendment means it is unlawful for states to pass legislation which unfairly deprives some dog owners of their dogs while other citizens, though their dogs too have the potential to bite, are not deprived of their dogs.

 

The CDC too has pondered the legal ramifications surrounding BSL:

 

“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” (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000, p. 839).

 

It is our position here at NoPitBullBans.com that it is never legal or within constitutional bounds to pass breed-specific legislation simply because science is unable to prove that bullies are inherently dangerous. Nor can breed be determined definitively enough to warrant owners’ deprivation of their property (their dogs).

 

Additionally, BSL has not been statistically proven to work. The CDC concurs:

 

“Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites. An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their behavior” (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000 Vet Med Today: Special Report 839-840).

 

Because BSL is fraught with many fundamental constitutional and logistical issues, it is also much more expensive than vicious dog laws which punish not the breed, but individual acts of dog aggression, making owners responsible for their dogs’ behavior.

 

Actually, the CDC offers much more practical and inexpensive ways of curbing dog bites and dog attacks such as proposing and enforcing leash laws, better Animal Control enforcement (which often is simply a matter of needing more personnel), and educating owners about the importance of dog training and socialization. Another key area needing improvement is the amount of free-roaming dogs. Breed-specific legislation does not prevent dog attacks related to free-roaming dogs since the same irresponsible owners who let their dogs free-roam before the breed ban was passed will continue to disregard the law after a ban is passed (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000, p. 840).

 

So to recap, what do we really know about “pit bulls” based on the CDC report? We know that it is difficult if not impossible to discern breed with any certainty even for experts. We know that because of the difficulty surrounding breed identification that dog bite statistics and dog-bite related fatalities related to bully breeds are greatly skewed. We know that there is no breed of dog called “pit bull” or “pit bull-type dog.” We know there is no scientific evidence that one breed of dog is more vicious than another. We know that breed-specific legislation is expensive, impossible to enforce, and abounding in constitutional issues.

 

Municipalities pass breed bans — usually as the result of a recent attack — to appear to the public as if they are responsive to what the media posits is a breed problem. As such, specific breeds take the fall for irresponsible owners. Often the media or elected officials cite CDC bite statistics as “proof” of why a breed ban or strictures are needed even though CDC bite statistics have long been debunked (even by the CDC themselves). But the only thing the CDC report proves is that specific breeds are victims of humans overwhelmingly more often than humans are victims of specific breeds.

 

http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?page_id=32

[Marty]

For the ones that has never had an encounter with an APBT how can you even post in this thread?

 

And thanks Tommy for chiming in on the topic

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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

Companionship?

[GameBeth:)]

Companionship?

 

Thank you. As a child of "the land of the free" my personal preference of dog is the American Pit Bull Terrier. My three year old will tell you his best friend is a "Pit Bull". Some other child may prefer the Golden. Or Doberman. But until one specific breed proves itself COMPLETELY UNWORTHY OF EXISTING then I will continue to oppose breed-specific bias. Until you have the co hones to tell my son his dog is demon-spawn unworthy of existence, then you have no angle. Hell, until you've shared your life with an APBT you don't know what the heck you are talking about. Hearsay really has no sustinence. Why do people who don't even know the APBT have such strong opinions?

[dichotomy]

We draw the line when your pet hurts someone or their property. We punish you for it and confiscate your animal that you can't control. Simple really. Why do we need to have laws enumerating every single thing we can or cannot do when we already have a natural check and balance system for this?

 

I'll be putting in my e-bay order for that African bull elephant I've always wanted then! Those elephants have never killed anyone in my state. They have a clean record. And there are no bi-laws regulating them. Yippy!

 

If the current laws are not adequately enforced, why do you think that changing the law itself will somehow change how and if they get applied?

 

Well, maybe there are too many legal loop holes? Maybe they are poorly respected because they are so open to interpretation? Or maybe you are correct and the execution needs to be emphisised and practiced more reliably by law enforcers. They may need a once a year 'BLITZ' like they do with other laws. Blitzes are often very effective. Like that fu(king j-walking blitz that got me.

[Pangloss]

My wife owned a Pit Bull, and had to carry a million-dollar insurance policy to own it (a local law). It died of old age after 17 years without ever hurting a fly. In fairness, in its addage it got a little grumpy, and that sometimes scared the bejesus out of people IFF they knew it was a pit bull from earlier conversations (like me). Other than that she never had a problem.

 

This is one of those deals people get all upset over because of the media. We don't have a nine-page thread about traffic fatalities or helmetless motorcycle riders, but we sure have one with all kinds of emotion and anecdotal, irrational "evidence" about the danger of pit bulls.

 

Whatever.

[DrDNA]

My wife owned a Pit Bull, and had to carry a million-dollar insurance policy to own it (a local law). It died of old age after 17 years without ever hurting a fly. In fairness, in its addage it got a little grumpy, and that sometimes scared the bejesus out of people IFF they knew it was a pit bull from earlier conversations (like me). Other than that she never had a problem.

 

This is one of those deals people get all upset over because of the media. We don't have a nine-page thread about traffic fatalities or helmetless motorcycle riders, but we sure have one with all kinds of emotion and anecdotal, irrational "evidence" about the danger of pit bulls.

 

Whatever.

 

 

But this is anecdotal evidence.

[iNow]

But this is anecdotal evidence.

 

Yes, but Pangloss is not trying to argue in favor of change in the existing legal structure or personal freedoms.

[Robert Byers]

I am a creationist and like in subjects about origins I think you guys need some better analyis here.

In Canada here pit bulls are charged with being a greater threat then other dogs. The owners deny its so. Yet the papers and public believe pits are badder.

 

Is it possible there is another answer here?!

 

Lets say you have 5 pit bulls and five collies (I presume collies are the sweetest)

A child comes and pulls the ears of all ten.

Two of the collies bite. Three don't.

One pit bites but four don't.

Yet what is the damage.

The two collies biting are not committed or very good or have strong jaws.

The one pit has great jaws and great determination to finsh the job.

Is it possible then pits are not more violent (as only one here bite) then other dogs but rather they are conditioned to that once the fight is on they are too win and be thorough.

Not a personality trait issue but a job training issue.

Conclusion could be NO pits are not meaner but yes they , once provoked, thorough.

Creationism to the rescue perhaps here.

Robert Byers

Toronto,Ontario

[ReignPBK]

Here is a video that shows that Pit Bulls do not have the strongest bit and you will notice that the pit bull does not hang on any longer than the other two breeds tested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7jhrxy0HKs&eurl=http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/general-info/74918-true-bite-strength-rottweilers.html

When you look up specific breed kennels/ breeders you will find there is more kennels/ breeders listed for Pit Bulls than any other breed. To me this shows there are more Pit Bulls owned than any other breed so I would expect to see more attacks by Pit Bulls than any other breed. Just as if there was more Boxers, Dalmatians, Border Collies, etc... owned than any other breed I would expect a higher bite rate from them than any other breed. I believe banning a breed would never lower the dog bite fatalities. The only way to lower dog bite fatalities would be to seriously reduce the number of irresponsible owners and educate the public on dog safety. Or maybe it would just be easier to ban all dogs over 25 lbs and while we're at it outlaw driving since more people die in car accidents than dog bite fatalities (Motor vehicle crashes Deaths per year: 43,200), or how about we ban guns since more people have died by a gun than any dog bite fatalities (Firearms Deaths per year: 1,500), or how about banning fishing, swimming, or taking a bath since more people have died from drowning than any dog bite fatalities (Drowning Deaths per year: 4,000)? Does that seem a little silly to ban all those thing? Well so does banning a breed of dog!

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/accidents/accidents3.html

[SkepticLance]

Amazing how dog lovers can ignore any statistic that does not meet with their prejudice.

 

In the USA, pit bulls account for 35% of all fatal attacks on humans. And no, they do NOT constitute 35% of the dog population.

 

 

 

There are 74 million dogs in the USA. 35% is 26 million. Do you really think that there are 26 million pit bulls in the USA?

 

http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_policy_boston.html

[iNow]

As has been asked more than once, SkepticLance... What is the source which is calling these dogs "pit bulls?" Is it a certified American Kennel Club historian, or some stupid shit who watches a bunch of news and sees every dog as a pit bull?

[iNow]

As has been asked more than once, SkepticLance... What is the source which is calling these dogs "pit bulls?" Is it a certified American Kennel Club historian, or some stupid shit who watches a bunch of news and sees every dog as a pit bull?

[ReignPBK]

Amazing how dog lovers can ignore any statistic that does not meet with their prejudice.

 

In the USA, pit bulls account for 35% of all fatal attacks on humans. And no, they do NOT constitute 35% of the dog population.

 

 

 

There are 74 million dogs in the USA. 35% is 26 million. Do you really think that there are 26 million pit bulls in the USA?

 

http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_policy_boston.html

 

 

There is no way that one can determine how many dogs there is in total nor how many of one breed there is.

 

As has been asked more than once, SkepticLance... What is the source which is calling these dogs "pit bulls?" Is it a certified American Kennel Club historian, or some stupid shit who watches a bunch of news and sees every dog as a pit bull?

 

*Pit bull is NOT a breed. It's a generic term often used to describe all dogs with similar traits and characteristics often known by the public as "pit bulls".

 

http://www.pbrc.net/breedinfo.html