Sunday, May 22, 2011

Pit bull safety: 7 attack triggers


It's no secret that dogs can bite. It also shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that pit bull attacks tend to be the most severe of all. The ongoing study of serious and fatal dog attacks conducted by the animal people organization since 1982 indicates that pit bulls, at around 5% of the dog population in the USA, account for more fatal and disfiguring attacks on humans than the other 95% of dogs combined. Several medical studies have shown that the most severe dog bite trauma seen by ER doctors is nearly always inflicted by pit bulls. A 1986 dog attack study showed that pit bulls are 600% more likely to attack their owner than other dogs - and the pit bull attack statistics have been worsening in recent years.



I won't take a side in the debate about who is responsible - bad dogs or bad owners - for the growing number of pit bull victims. That's a topic that has been debated elsewhere and will continue to be debated for the foreseeable future. What I would like to do is help bolster public safety by raising awareness of the sorts of things that can trigger a pit bull attack. A little knowledge can help avoid these scenarios, and make one less likely to suffer a pit bull attack.

Fortunately for this victim the pit bull that attacked her was only 4 months old

Here are 7 deadly triggers to avoid:

1. Attempting to discipline your pit bull. Really.
2. Attempting to intervene when your pit bull attacks another dog.
3. Slipping and falling on the ice while walking your pit bull. Really.
4. Being trapped under a car that falls on you while you're working on it.
5. Handing out peaches to passing children.
6. Going out to feed the horses.
7. Taking a walk on a Sunday afternoon.

This list of 7 triggers is fairly representative, but by no means complete. For a more comprehensive treatment, please consult this list of it bull attack triggers compiled by the fact checkers at dogsbite.org


References
"Are pit bulls different?" - Randall Lockwood, Kate Rindy
"Mortality, Mauling and Maiming by Vicious Dogs" - Bini et al
Dog attacks, deaths and maimings, US & Canada - Merritt

112 comments:

  1. i think i am in the minority but pit bulls turning on their ADULT owners are kind of fun. we call them Darwin Attacks :)

    i remember this putz in the blue hat. he found a stray bull and decided to keep it, not long after, it did that to his face. in the interview, this guy was still spouting the party line. claims to still like pit bulls, it's all how they're raised, my next one will be a puppy!

    btw, the new zealand link is broken (trapped under car)

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Craven - indeed, the blue hat guy has earned his pit bull advocate credentials the hard way. Gotta admire his spunk, wanting to get in line for another round of pit bull roulette after having his face torn up like that.

    BTW the link on the pit bull victim trapped under his car works for me - a glitch in the matrix?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The guy in the blue hat is sick! Why would he want any more of that?
    Sharon L

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope he NEVER brings his trusty pets around anyone else. Who can trust HiS judgement? Wow. (Blue hat guy) It's True. Some people really DO never learn.

      Delete
  4. @Sharon L - now that is an excellent question.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (sigh....once again I tried not to comment and once again, I failed...lol). More often than you'd think, a dog that attacks someone and is labeled Pit Bull, is actually a mutt or a different breed altogether. Even if a picture is att...ached and it looks like a Pitbull, it could be any number of mixes which produce similar characteristics. Really, when you think about it, condemning a dog based on his physical traits is declaring his guilt based purely on his appearance. But there are the other people who honestly feel that Pitbulls, and any dog that resembles one, are a danger to society. Often, these folks don't know much about dogs and certainly not much about Pits. But they are being bombarded with almost all bad press about these dogs. It is evident that the media fuels misconceptions about Pits and stirs up the public. And the statistics behind the fury are less than accurate. Even the Center for Disease Control, which puts out many of the stats, states that dog bite and dog attack data cannot be gathered accurately. But, still, the section of society that does not feel safe with Pit Bulls has a right to be heard. And, considering the bull they are fed about Pits, it's no wonder they don't believe the Pit Bull supporters.

    Unfortunately, both sides of the Pit Bull debate are often stubborn about their views and solutions. They need to be realistic about how to end it. For those that think Pit Bulls are dangerous, they need to recognize that banning Pits tears loved pets away from their families and what they propose will not stop all dangerous dogs.

    As of February 2011, here is the top 10 dangerous large breed dog list (*note: ALL breeds bite with 238 different breeds that have caused serious injuries to fatalities over a 10-year study. This is a list of large breeds that have more tendency to do so):

    Presa Canario (originated from the Canary Islands in Africa)
    Doberman Pinscher (originated from Germany)
    Husky (originated from Siberia)
    German Shepherd (originated from Germany)
    Alaskan Malamute (originated from North America)
    Rottweiler (originated from Germany)
    “Pit Bull” (originated from America)
    Dalmatian (originated from India)
    Boxer (originated from Germany)
    Chow Chow (originated from China)

    And we own 1 of these breeds listed: the Doberman and our other dog is a Belgian Malinois (often mistaken for a GSD).

    ~Christine

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Christine,

      Pit bulls do cause most of the damage. Dalmations, not so much. Agreed about the Presa Canario. Both pits and Presas are molosser breeds, bred to kill things.

      It is true that these other dogs do attack, but its not the same. Pits are the nastiest dogs by far. The media is just reporting the news.

      Delete
    2. Okay, how about this compromise? ANY animal capable of mauling is out. You know...no mountain lions, no pet tigers, and all dog breeds with mauling ability banned. This is more than fair.

      Delete
    3. You know what other breeds are Molossers? Mountain Dogs. Like Bernese Mountain Dogs, Newfoundlands, St. Bernards, Great Pyrenees. People don't talk about those breeds being aggressive, the Molosser heritage doesn't mean much.

      Delete
    4. @Michelle Bambie

      Agreed, the Molosser family of dogs includes a lot of wonderful breeds, including some of my favorites.

      Delete
    5. Pit bulls are UNPREDICTABLE.
      "Rescue" dogs are frequently emotionally unstable.
      As much as I feel for these abused animals,
      they will NOT be safe to adopt as pets for your family, even if very young.

      They have been selectively bred for hundreds of years to be tenacious and relentless killers.
      Many "loving and friendly" family pets have suddenly and WITHOUT WARNING
      turned on their owners and/or their children and other pets.
      Their style of holding on and mauling is much more damaging than that of other dogs
      (this also applies to the other "bully" breeds).

      This is a tragedy that humans have created through genetic selection.
      It cannot be undone by training or "rehabilitation". Take care
      when around these animals, even if they appear to be very tame.
      They can be "triggered" - for no apparent reason - in an INSTANT.
      (See DogsbiteDotOrg for true accounts)

      ...I realize that you probably consider your loving dog to be completely safe.
      I thought MY "rescue" dog was also...until he bit a neighbor child. He also behaved
      in an aggressive manner toward men who smelled of beer and cigarettes.
      Who knows what the background experiences of these animals have been?
      (He was very loving and loyal toward me - his rescuer - of course.)
      However, I will never adopt another "shelter" dog again. Too many unknowns.
      The safety of other PEOPLE is my prime concern at this point.

      Delete
  6. The trapped under the car example is especially horrific. Getting mauled by your own pampered pets because you get hurt and cry out - Oh the Loyalty!

    If only pit bulls ONLY attacked their adult owners. Then all would be fine for me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Snack sized - yep, that's pit bull loyalty for you - brings a tear to the eye, doesn't it? Move over Lassie!

    ReplyDelete
  8. glad to see you updated the blog to include the new zealand victim.

    A PUPPY DID THAT DAMAGE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Christine

    You fall back upon the same tired pit bull talking points.

    BSL does not "tear loving dogs away from their families." BSL (which can be anything that a community desires, extra licensing fees, confinement, insurance, or a ban) when passed, grandfathers existing and legally kept pits. If a pit bull is found roaming the streets or behaving in an aggressive manner, THEN Animal Control may pick it up, this is the job they are paid to do. If a pit owner makes the choice to move into a community with some form of BSL, it is the dog owner's responsibility to know the law. Passing a pit bull off as some other breed to defy the law is a poor tactic. See "Managing the Stigma of Outlaw Breeds: A case study of Pit Bull Owners" from the Tufts University Center for Animals and Public Policy. BSL is not designed to reduce simple bite counts, it is designed to reduce life changing/life ending maulings. There is a huge difference between the two.

    The media does not create victims of pit bull attacks just to sell news papers. Behind every news story about a pit bull attack there is a very real victim, just like me. Our lives are changed forever and the pit bull advocates deny our existance.

    Don't even think about saying that I am ignorant. I have spent my entire adult life on the horse show/obedience trial circuit. There is a tremendous crossover between horse shows and dog shows. Almost every horse owner also has dogs and many show both. I ringmaster/ring steward both events and see a LOT of dogs compete. I know what I'm looking at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A quick Google search for "deaths caused by horses" revealed within the first result that horses are the creature most likely to cause human death, then cows and in third place dogs. Looks like we need to focus on banning horses.

      Delete
    2. Well, out of curiosity I did some checking (silly me, I thought for just a moment that the pit promoter crowd might come up with a fact-based argument) but not surprisingly, it turns out to be false.

      In retrospect, it's no surprise. It just doesn't pass the smell test. If you've paid any attention at all to news and current events, you know that 15 people have been mauled to death in the US so far this year by pit bull type dogs, and hundreds of people have been injured or maimed. But where are people being attacked, maimed and killed by horses?

      ...sound of crickets chirping....

      As bad as the problem is of pit bull violence against human victims, their violence towards animals is much worse. There are on the order of 20 serious pit bull attacks every day on innocent family pets. often in their own yards.

      It's no surprise that a breed specifically created and bred for a temperament and drive to commit acts of animal cruelty has such a bloody and violent history of violence against animals. Any true animal lover would be screaming bloody murder to stop the torture and killing, but pit bull promoters are only interested in keeping such violence quiet, and punishing those who speak out or try to stop it.

      If you, as a pit bull promoter could somehow ever manage to step outside your pit bull shtick for just a moment and allow yourself to feel just a hint of compassion for the victims, you could become a better person for it. Unfortunately, I've never seen it happen yet.

      Delete
    3. @Kyle Brown: Obviously, your "Googling" skills leave a lot to be desired because "a quick Google search" reveals the creature most likely to kill humans in the US is the bee! (Worldwide it is the mosquito!) For the past several years, bees have killed an average of 53 humans per year in the US. Second are dogs with an average of 34 per year. Horses, which you claim kill more people than any other "creature," kill an average of only 20 humans per year in the US and those people are either horseback riders or work in the equestrian field -- in other words, they assume the risk.

      But perhaps you have your years confused and you're checking the statistics for 1913, as opposed to 2013. A hundred years ago, horses did cause a considerable number of deaths in the US.

      Delete
    4. I have looked at BSL research as opposed to non-specific breed restrictions. The research I found is that BSL laws are not more effective. I did find this site claiming pit bull bans were effective, http://blog.dogsbite.org/2010/06/cities-with-successful-pit-bull-laws.html but what they leave out is whether or not breed non-restrictive laws might be equally if not more effective. Of course, when you ban a breed the number of aggressive attacks from that breed will obviously go down so those stats are leaving out what I've read several places to be the recommend action: stricter laws that include all breeds. If anyone has research suggesting BSL laws are more effective than non specific breed restrictions I'd like to look at it. Thanks

      Delete
    5. Hopeful one, there is no substance to your assertions. You claim to have arrived at a conclusion which the data does not support. You grudgingly admit that cities with pit bull bans have sharply reduced or eliminated disfiguring or fatal pit bull attacks but then you question whether such bans are effective?

      Any way you slice it, you remove attacks by pit bull type dogs from the equation, and we're back to 1960s levels of injuries and deaths from dog attack.

      You seem to have an agenda, and it's not to reduce or eliminate the suffering and death of pit bulls victims, whether 2 legged or 4 legged.

      What can one possibly conclude, when your solution to the pit bull problem is to crack down on golden retriever owners?

      Delete
    6. Golden Retriever owners? He never said that LOL

      Delete
  10. medias bias

    to :anonymous; the one who does not like pits
    sure as anything you care to name, the media puts pits on the paper because it sells. they just dont put other "life changing" attacks, like the chihuahua biting the face off of an innocent baby. if that was put in the news the public would quickly stop buying said news.they think of the other dog as a family dog, and give in to the sentiment of "pits are vicious killers", which they are not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To Anonymous (the one who likes pit bulls!): Last year, the three dog attack fatalities in the US that received the most media coverage were the huskie that killed a newborn in Pennsylvania; the retriever-mix that killed the 2-month-old baby in South Carolina; and the big, ugly Mastiff monster that killed the little boy in Nevada on his 1st birthday. These news stories received more media attention than all last year's 24 murders-by-pit bull combined!

      In fact, pit bulls kill so many people that some of the murders are hardly reported at all. For example, in February of this year, two pit bulls in East Baltimore caused the death of James Harding (age 62) and the report appeared on only two or three local news sites. It was so under-reported that many people who keep dog attack death statistics don't even know about it. Another under-reported pit bull murder was that of 5-year-old Arianna Jolee Nerrback in South Carolina, which occurred last month. However, the death of Ayden Evans, the 5-year-old boy in Arkansas killed by the overgrown bullmastiff made the international news!

      Delete
    2. Perhaps you're not aware that a bull mastiff is so named because it is part pit bull. English Mastiffs are very mellow dogs which can be quite formidable should the need arise. Bull mastiffs are quite a bit more risky, due to the pit bull DNA.

      Murder is a term which is often used to describe the intentional killing of a human. You may not take it seriously, but I assure you that the friends and family of the victim most certainly do.

      Delete
  11. Anon 5:39,

    I'm going to keep this short as a lot of my full responses can be found in my links.

    Most attacks I've documented clearly show the dog to be a pit bull. Most of their attacks are mutilations or a fatality. In fact, sometimes pit bulls are misidentified in an attack. But most of the time the breed standard of other dogs including pit bulls makes them easy to distinguish.

    Many other breeds I've documented are shown to have a severe bite as their highest offense but they generally only bite.

    When you consider the bull delivered by pit bull advocates it is no surprise that many people think that it is indeed generally your side that is full of bull.

    On your bite-o-meter. Note how you've not proven any links or any individual cases that show the six breeds preceding the pit bull are indeed higher. Also note that the severe cases involving the APBT and Am or Eng staffordshire still outrank other breeds one on one.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If a toy sized dog "bit the face off an innocent baby" it would absolutely be in the news, it would be news worthy, a one in a million event. The media does not create pit bull victims. I was not created by a reporter with a deadline and no news to report. If the toy dog attack was not reported in the news, how did you hear about it?

    Pit bulls have killed 7 American citizens since the first of this year. This is an absolute reality, clearly documented. You need to make sense if you want to influence public perception.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anonymous: Of course it would be in the news. Last November when the nasty little Jack Russell terrier killed the week-old baby in England, it was reported worldwide. In fact, I first heard about it on a local TV news report in Florida.

      Of course, just about any animal can kill or harm a newborn. Back in 1991, a ferret killed a newborn in Oregon; and in 2011 a ferret ate off a baby's fingers in Missouri. And back in 2006, a 6-week-old pit bull puppy chewed off a baby's toes in Louisiana.



      Delete
  13. I agree with anon 6:59.

    There was a labrador puppy that killed a child and that news story went around like wild fire.

    The media has two main things to achieve based on the motto to document what is known to sell. That would be things the people find of interests and things that are out of the ordinary. Man's best friend (ie pit bull) makes for a good news story, it sells, and for obvious reason. The pit bull is out of the ordinary for general dog behavior. And a small dog that manages to kill a human being? That's a one in a million story that the media would love to grab as long as there were ample proof for such an occurrence.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous,

    With all due respect, I fail to see what horse shows and dog shows have to do with the Pit Bull argument. It would be a breath of fresh air for a poster to not judge another poster until knowing facts. I grew up raising and showing Quarter Horses with my grandmother for 20+ years and we were members of AQHA, PCQA, PCBHA, as well as local chapters. So since we’ve established that we have both been in the show ring, care to tell me how that makes one smarter or more ignorant than the other? It does not. It has zero relevance to the topic at hand. Since I do not know you, I wouldn’t know if you’re ignorant or not. You’re just someone who has an opinion on a subject and a touchy subject it is regardless of where one stands on it.

    If you re-read what I had posted, it says that those against Pit Bulls “have a right to be heard”. While I am not for or against Pit Bulls albeit I do argue against the banning of the breed. As for leash laws, insurance, registering, et al, it is the OWNERS responsibility. ANY breed of dog and ANY size dog cannot do that on their own. It is not the dogs fault as to the breed they are nor what it is they are bred for. Pet owners are ultimately responsible for the care and safety of their pet as well as insuring the safety of others. When you own a powerful breed, you as the owner are responsible for understanding the type of breed you own, and handling said breed with absolute responsibility; albeit sadly that is not the case with so many owners regardless of the breed they own. For those who ARE responsible Pit Bull owners, banning the breed would punish them as well and that I find serious fault with. So, please do not tout to me about “same tired pit bull talking points” when you demonstrated the “same tired anti-Pit Bull talking points” yourself. When someone can come up with a solution that would ensure that ALL pet owners adhere to pet laws, then there’s something to discuss. With millions of pets in the US, it would be next to impossible with lack of funding and manpower to know that every pet has been registered, licensed, etc. There are already laws in place which need to be worked on and creating new laws will not fix the problem. Going back and forth debating one’s side of the argument, does not fix the problem. Showing resentment and anger towards a breed and towards owners of a breed does not fix the problem. Complaining about the lack of laws and/or lack of upholding current laws do not fix the problem. Come up with a solution that BOTH sides can agree to and you will be successful.

    While you are an unfortunate victim of a Pit Bull attack that does not mean the breed should be banned. Just because I have part of my upper lip missing with no thanks to a Chihuahua mix, I do not feel that Chihuahua’s and mixes of the breed should be blamed nor banned.

    ~Christine

    ReplyDelete
  15. Christine,

    Who here was advocating for a breed ban? You're the only one who's talking about bans. Everyone else is talking about regulations of some sort. Are you even reading these responses before you reply?

    And there lies the rub, Christine. People like Ledy are trying their hardest to remove laws that remove any form of regulation, even when it promotes responsible ownership and even when it's not breed specific. Every other breed advocate seems to have no problem admitting to certain breed flaws, and they themselves believe that their breeds are not for everyone. And almost all of them have no problem with enforced dog laws. Your community (pit bull) seems to be the only breed advocacy to go against this grain.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Christine,
    Any community has the right to pass laws, as requested by their residents, to protect those residents, without interference from special interest groups. Laws might include insurance requirements, special licensing, confinement requirements, requirements for special education, minimum age for dog owners, OR a ban, OR any combination of the above.

    You were apparently bitten by the chi mix while you were an infant (you are the innocent baby)and have a scar on your face. This still impacts you. Who owned the dog?

    Please try to put yourself into the position of a person who might have lost an arm, leg, scalp. Try to put yourself in the position of someone who has seen their dog, or cat, or horse, or livestock mauled or killed.


    Pit owners are responsible for this misery but are unable or unwilling to stop the bloodshed. They prance away from the mess with a "sucks to be you." Victims end up paying the bills for their own attacks. This is why laws regulating pit bulls have become so popular.

    You have a great deal of concern for the rights of "responsible pit bull owners" but we do not see many of them. Your solution seems to be no regulation at all.

    I did not claim intelligence or ignorance for either one of us, you did that all by yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. There has been a lot of heated debate here. I actually can relate to both sides because I love Akitas which are considered by some to be dangerous dogs. (I also love Chihuahuas, those fragile, neurotic little babies with such great dignity, but that's another story).

    I can tell you for sure that Christine is good people, there's no doubt in my mind about that. I think we want a lot of the same things but can't agree on the means.

    There are a lot of positives for BSL, and it has drastically cut down on pit bull attacks where it has been implemented. Some will say that the overall number of bites does not decrease - but even if that's the case, I'll take 1000 nips from toy ankle biters rather than a single "bite" (mauling) from a pit bull any day. But those who are against BSL may have valid concerns when they say that such laws aren't perfect.

    I'll be honest, it wouldn't bother me much if pit bulls were outlawed. But it would bother me a lot if they decided to outlaw Akitas.

    So let's set BSL aside for the moment and think about a law that we can agree on. How about a law that puts the responsibility for a dog's actions on the owner without spelling out any specific breed - a law like Fabian's Law

    Is this a more fair solution? Does anyone think it is worse than BSL? The only thing I don't want to see happen is to continue to coast along in the same direction we've been going. The number of serious and fatal pit bull attacks has been rising every year. We're on track to have 20 fatalities this year from pit bull attacks. When we look at the 176 children killed in the US by pit bulls so far, it's clear something has to be done.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jake,

    I do not doubt that she is of a decent character, although it seems to be misguided. She does seem to have more sense than most people in the pit bull community, but until she realizes that the pit bull problem resides within her own community I think those good intentions are for naught.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Love how the pit bull advocates keep changing the topic? Never once tackling the real heart of the issues? :) Christine seems to be the only one kind of trying, which is rare, but overall. No one has shown concrete evidence of their claims - huh...

    ReplyDelete
  20. What I'd really like to hear from the pit bull advocates is how they propose to address the problem. No matter how many gruesome maulings are committed by pit bulls, they will always say "it's bad owners".

    OK, how do we deal with these ostensibly bad owners? How do we discourage them from inflicting their gripping dogs on us? How do we keep these "badly owned" dogs from snapping chains, chewing through fences, or jumping out of second story windows or moving cars to attack our children, our pets, and ourselves when we try to intervene?

    What solution would you consider fair? Inquiring minds want to know.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jake,

    The answer to your question is BSL. Pit bull advocates have no solutions and take no action other than making excuses.

    Another child,just 4 years old, was mauled to death just yesterday by the family pit bull. He lived in New York. You have to wonder if his mother was one of those folks who turn up in the comments after a mauling? "I have the sweetest pit bull, plays with my kids and just licks them to death." Her actual words she screamed were "HELP! He ate my baby... he ate my baby."

    ReplyDelete
  22. jake,

    the problem: weak laws combined with our bizarre view of dogs as children or penis extenders and the american grandiose sense of rights in our narcissistic culture.

    we don't have a right to own or walk around with machine guns. why should we have a right to walk around with these canine killing machines?

    for starters, dog ownership needs to stop being regarded as right. it should be a privilege.

    laws against dangerous dogs needs to be enhanced. menacing needs to become a crime. currently if a dog gets loose and tries to attack someone, the police do nothing if there was no injury. AC and LE fall back on the lame ass excuse "they did not see it, so there is nothing they can do". this has happened to me. it just recently happened in DubV's neighborhood. yet the police do not need to witness with their own eyes if i run up to someone on the street and threaten them with a knife or a gun. this double standard needs to change. dogs are every bit as dangerous as guns, knives, fists, clubs etc.

    dog owners whose dogs seriously injure another should PERMANENTLY lose the privilege of owning another dog and they should be charged with assault & battery or attempted murder or murder, what ever the injuries sustained warrant.

    if the owner can not prove their dog has had rabies vaccine and their dog that gets loose and bites, no matter how minor - FELONY. their other dogs should be seized. people who flee the scene of an attack - FELONY.

    a couple of months ago, a man was walking his 2 rottweilers back east, new york i think. they were on leashes but he could not control them. they attacked an old woman who was just out for a walk. they were leashed the entire time. when the police showed up, they took his information and let him walk home, WITH HIS DOGS, despite the fact that he just demonstrated for all the world to see, that he could NOT control them. imagine if a driver lost control of his truck and ran up on the curb and plowed someone over. the police showed up, took his information and then let him drive home!

    ReplyDelete
  23. I absolutely have never and do not deny that there is a problem with regard to irresponsible Pit Bull owners. Nor have I ever claimed that I have a solution. And good intentions (regardless of where one stands) are never for naught. On a side note: I was just a couple weeks shy of officially becoming a teenager, when all I did was bend down to fasten my sandal when the next thing I knew, a Chihuahua mix was latched onto my lip. The owner was one those type of pet owners who always claimed that her dog(s) could never do any wrong. To this day, I have no issues against the breed. In fact, Jake owns a Chihuahua that I had rescued almost 2-years ago. Just because people have a difference of opinion on any given topic, does not make anyone ignorant nor does it make one more intelligent than the other. Doesn’t make either better than the other, nor does it prove that each is misguided in some way. It’s just a very simple difference of opinion. Jake is right in that we want to see similar things happen, we each just approach it differently.

    I do side with Craven. I do believe that owning a pet should be a privilege and not viewed as a right. I also agree that if a pet owner has proven themselves to be irresponsible with their pets (i.e. pet attacks another human being, attacks another animal, owner abuses their pets, neglects, etc.) then they SHOULD lose their “right” to ever own any type of animal ever again.

    I do not want to “go after” any animal and punish an animal for what an idiot of a human has done. Human beings understand right from wrong and they should be punished accordingly. I will always do what I can to stand up for animals and will continue to rescue and adopt out animals into better homes because I have seen the atrocities that humans inflict on animals. And our capacity to do such unspeakable things to another living creature will always boggle my mind. I do not and will not blame an animal for being what it is, an animal, but I will blame my fellow man for the horrors they inflict on all living creatures regardless of species.

    With that said, unfortunately, no other breed has held the title of the most aggressive breed the longest than that of the Pit Bull (Rottweiler’s held the title for a while in the late 80’s/early 90’s and before that it was Dobermans and German Shepherds for a short while). Now on the flip side, what has happened because of all of this; has brought to light the issue of irresponsible pet ownership all across the board and questions began arising as to what can be done about it. Some states have enacted tough laws but sadly it’s not in all states. I believe Texas is one the few who have some pretty strict laws with regard to pet ownership and will (if proven) ban someone from owning any pets. Some states though have laws that are so weak I often wonder why anyone bothered to waste the ink to put the laws on the books. We will continue to follow Fabians Law to see how well that plays out and I sincerely hope it’s a success.

    ~Christine

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yep, Christine is the "good samaritan" who rescued a little chihuahua from certain death out on the middle of nowhere back in 2009 - the very same spoiled chihuahua who now sleeps in our bed. So, being eternally grateful for her rescue of that poor baby, I have to give her some slack when we don't agree about pit bulls, cause I know her heart's in the right place.

    @Christine - you make some good points but I'm not too sure about the "first it was the Dobermans then it was the German Shepherds, then it was the Rottweilers" argument - I've heard that from pit bull advocates but according to everything I can find in the historical records available through google, the pit bulls have been mauling and killing pets and people at a rate much higher than the average dog since the 1800s.

    It stands to reason that a breed specifically created "to kill things and take a licking while doing it" would be more dangerous than the average dog.

    I know of responsible pit bull owners and they are very careful with these creatures. On the other hand, some unsuspecting family that takes home a pit bull rescue, naively assuming it will be just like a lab or a golden retriever, is a disaster waiting to happen.

    As I've said, I want to get across one point, and that is that pit bulls are dangerous, and shouldn't be given out like party favors to just anyone who thinks they want one.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous said...
    Jake,

    The answer to your question is BSL. Pit bull advocates have no solutions and take no action other than making excuses.

    Another child,just 4 years old, was mauled to death just yesterday by the family pit bull. He lived in New York. You have to wonder if his mother was one of those folks who turn up in the comments after a mauling? "I have the sweetest pit bull, plays with my kids and just licks them to death." Her actual words she screamed were "HELP! He ate my baby... he ate my baby."
    May 28, 2011 11:30 AM

    And this is where fact vs didn’t-check-facts are frustrating to say the least. It was a Cane Corso Mastiff that mauled the 4-year old boy. Not a Pit Bull. By merely looking at a picture and not reading and looking into the story itself, you immediately jumped to the conclusion by looks alone that the dog was a Pit Bull. Neither breed is related. The Cane Corso Mastiff is actually called the Italian Mastiffs. Whereas the “common” Pit Bull is from good ‘ole US of A. Please check facts before posting about an attack.

    This particular dog, according to the articles, was “trained to kill”. These are the type of owners who should not be allowed to own any animal and in fact, shouldn’t be allowed to have children if they’re allowed to own any type of animal that was trained to kill. What possible reason does one need to train a “family pet” to kill? And because the dog looks similar to a Pit Bull, here come the torch and pitchfork wielding anti-anything-to-do-with-a-Pit-even-if-it’s-not-a-Pit-but-looks-like-a-Pit people. This is where those like me who are fighting to protect all animals and fighting to make laws harder on negligent and irresponsible pet owners, get so frustrated.

    Sources about attack on 4-year old boy:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/29/cane-corso-mastif-mauls-4-year-old_n_868612.html

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/cane-corso-mastiff-fatally-mauls-boy-brooklyn-home/story?id=13714746

    http://www.inquisitr.com/109813/cane-corso-mastiff-that-mauled-brooklyn-toddler-was-trained-to-kill/

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/28/4-year-old-boy-killed-by-family-pit-bull-in-brooklyn/

    ~Christine

    ReplyDelete
  26. All the reports I read said that it was a Cane Corso that attacked but there was also a pit bull in the same house. In any case, the misreporting of breeds goes both ways so it probably evens out.

    From what I can see, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, Presa Canarios and other dangerous dogs were created from many of the same breeds as pit bulls, and for much the same reason. Any BSL would need to include these breeds as well.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Jake: In the 1970’s Doberman Pinschers were considered the most vicious dog, and were popular with criminals. In the 1980’s it was the Rottweiler and German Shepherd. Hollywood glorified the Doberman as being evil because whenever they needed an “evil” dog, naturally the Doberman was chosen. Society (in general) feared the breed based on movies alone. In time, society got past those fears. In fact, it’s only been what…almost 40 years that the aggressive nature of the Doberman had been weaned out by careful breeding. They were in fact very aggressive because they were specifically bred for guard and protection. Not to be a family pet by any stretch of the means but that has changed but only in recent years. Sadly, the Pit Bull doesn’t and will probably never get that opportunity thanks to criminals and the like who use the breed to add to their “tough” look. The animals and victims are the ones who suffer while the irresponsible Pit Bull owners merely get a slap on the wrist and are free to do it all over again.

    And I agree, those who adopt/rescue a Pit Bull not understanding what they’re getting into, is a recipe for disaster. These animals need responsible owners, and those who are proven to be responsible when owning a Pit Bull. Sadly, way too many fall through the cracks and what was once considered a sad, sweet face sitting in a shelter, ends up on the news because it mauled either a human or someone else’s pet.

    ~Christine

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ Jake: The Presa Canarios is on a Top Ten (large breed) Dangerous/Aggressive Dog List. I think (and I am assuming here), they do not list dangerous/aggressive breeds that are considered "rare". Maybe it's because they do not get very many (if any) reports on the other breeds associated with bites and/or any other form of aggression? Who knows. But the other breeds are aggressive and most are imported from other countries who bred the dogs for a specific reason albeit it was not to be a family pet. But again, I blame my fellow man that make the decisions to own an animal that is not family oriented nor socialized to be so.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Christine,
    After a moments hesitation you jumped right back into confrontational mode. First reports indicated Pit bull, photos of the dog do not show the classic look of a full Cane Corso. Actually LOOK at the dog. This dog may well have been named something other than what it actually is. (As the dog that attacked me was intentionally misidentified by the owner, three different breeds at three different times.) This is very common with owners of violent dogs, please read the study from Tufts for more insight on this phenomenon. When the owner of a dog identifies it to his neighbors as something, then the neighbors will identify it as the same thing if asked. If an owner of a dog puts a sign in the yard for "puppies for sale" and identifies the breed, then the neighbors will identify the dogs as that breed.

    I am fighting to protect people, and non violent animals. You know those animals, they are the ones that appear in photos held by tearful people traumatized by watching a horrific death. The same people that are unable to sleep at night because that attack runs, like an unstopable loop tape through the brain. Victims relive the attack constantly... this is PTSD and from experinence I can tell you that it is a living hell.

    What is your suggestion to prevent violent individuals to create violent dogs? This particular man is not likely to choose Goldens or Beagles. His claim to the neighbors was "I breed MONSTER dogs." Possibly a law? That would be BSL. What is your answer to the millions of pits and pit mix dogs euthanized in shelters because there is simply no place for them to go? A humane and logical answer is mandatory neuter and spay for pits and pit mixes, as is done in San Francisco.

    Until you have a better answer for solving this mess, I would leave the "torch and pitchfork" remarks alone.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Christine,

    I love how you keep avoiding any of the comments that have been directed towards you and your views. If you're going to keep commenting, please actually respond to posts by other members directed towards you instead of throwing out red herrings. Is that a simple enough request?

    Yet again, I come to you in that you've provided not evidence for your claims. None, nada, zilch. You cannot provide records, historical accounts, or countless depictions of this being the case. You cannot point out a mass killing and breeding of these dogs. You cannot prove anything.

    Why is it that the Doberman in it's "unholy" days has had little to no recordable fatalities, while the pit bull stands head strong in almost all of those accounts? Why is this the same case with the German Shepard? Please actually take the time to click on one of my links and read this article.

    "...Hmmm, 71% of the people killed by dogs from june 86 - june 87, were killed by pit bulls is consistent with DR BEAVER'S 1991 sworn testimony. Weren't the 1980's supposed to be the decade of the doberman?..."

    Amazing how no matter how far back you go in the earliest of recorded records, pit bulls are the most prevalent.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Christine,

    I will agree with you on one thing however. Pit bulls are an unfortunate event thanks to criminals. But it's not because the abuse made the individual aggressive alone. But the breeding. There are many breeds who are abused each and every day that have had few attacks in the past decade. Two of them being beagles, and greyhounds.

    With some pit bulls I've personally known and loved, yes - they were amazing dogs. And in most of the cases, it was nurture that kept them good. But on that same leaf, there were several others who became heavily problematic despite having a good life and training when they reached a certain age. They were not owned by criminals, but middle class citizens.

    The truth is, with several if not many pit bulls. You're playing a game of Russian roulette. And why must people go through that?

    Use BSL in a good light, promote sound breeding, licenses, and registration of all and any pit bulls. This is one aspect of meeting some middle ground.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Being that I have had a doberman, rotteweiler, and pitbull it's hard for me to not adore any breed of dog regardless of if they are considered "dangerous" or not.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Here’s my issue: people like you only concentrate on what the media reports with what they perceive as “Pit Bull Attacks”. You and so many others, completely disregard attacks that have been reported by AMVA, CDC and NCRC by OTHER breeds. To you, those injuries/fatalities are insignificant because it was not perpetrated by a Pit Bull/Pit Bull type breed (I’m sure the victims of the other attacks appreciate the thoughtlessness). There is a complete lack of insight as to WHY the owner of ANY dog (be it pure bred or mixed, large or small) allowed the situation to happen in the first place. In MANY cases, the CDC, NCRC and AMVA state that most people and the media are unable to properly identify a specific breed. Whereas in an initial media report will state that the breed is “X” only later to be found out that the breed is actually “Y”. AMVA and NCRC have published articles stating that the number of attacks have actually decreased in recent years. However, the public will seize on what a media outlet reports regardless of the inaccuracies. Since you seem to feel that your sources and research is much more accurate than that of the professionals at AMVA, CDC and NCRC, I challenge you to challenge their reporting. Please give instances (accurate) of where your reporting is more accurate than theirs. Please also outline to them and to the public where and how you put together your research.

    I absolutely will not stand on a pedestal spouting that the only dangerous dog is a Pit Bull/Pit Bull Type. I WILL however ensure that PEOPLE be more responsible regardless of the type of breed they own so as to protect the public as well as protect the animal(s). Your misconception is that because I state that irresponsible pet owners and breeders are to blame for the majority of dog bites and fatalities across the US, you automatically assumed it meant that I was a die-hard Pit Bull supporter. What I am against are irresponsible pet owners REGARDLESS of breed and size of the dog as well as information based on misinformation. As NCRC and AMVA state, there are over 74 million pets in the US and that there is no way to accurately document all of the types of breeds there are and there is no way to accurately document which breed was responsible for the most bites/attacks each year.

    "Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is not an effective approach for regulating dogs' behavior in communities. Although such bans might comfort individuals who have had unpleasant experiences with particular breeds or have heard of attacks by specific dog breeds in the media, the bans do not act to effectively regulate the behavior of any breed or of dogs and their owners collectively. The bans carry with them too much potential for arbitrary or improper enforcement: inaccurate breed identification by officials, difficulty enforcing breed bans against mixed-breed dogs, animal control, and court system overload, and the potential for not identifying a genuinely "dangerous dog" as such because it doesn't fall into the specified breed categories. Unfortunately, large breeds of dogs such as Dobermans, German Shepherd Dogs, and Pit Bulls are popularly believed to be dangerous, and therefore may be judged more severely by judges than smaller, "cuddlier" breeds.59

    Government officials at the local and state level should focus on the problem itself - dangerous canine behavior - and concentrate their efforts on dogs' and owners' conduct. In doing so, officials can maintain a safe community for both dog owners and other residents." (animallaw.info)

    ~Christine

    ReplyDelete
  34. http://www.dogexpert.com/Dog%20bite%20cases/Doberman%20pinscher%20dog%20bite%20attack%20at%20boarding%20facility.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doberman_Pinscher

    “Studies of dog bites and dog bite fatalities have shown that the danger of attack by Dobermans is relatively high.[22]”

    ***In Illinois, one town is/was looking to ban the Doberman. (NCRC)


    http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0047723/m0047723.asp

    http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf

    1979-1996
    Record of dog-bite fatalities (see Table 1)
    Pit Bull = 60
    Rottweiler = 29
    German Shepherd = 19
    “Husky” = 14
    Alaskan Malamute = 12
    Doberman = 8

    Crossbreed:
    Wolf Hybrid = 14
    German Shepherd = 11
    Pit Bull = 10

    (per CDC): “This article lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years. It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. 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.” CDC.gov

    Although rottweilers and pit bulls were responsible for 60% of the 1997-1998 dog bite fatalities, these breeds have accounted for far fewer fatalities in past years.8 An earlier study by Pinckney and Kennedy showed that from 1975 to 1980, 81 dog bite fatalities occurred in the U.S., involving only one rottweiler and no pit bulls. The breed that caused the greatest number of fatalities between 1975 to 1980 was the German shepherd, a breed that was not involved in a single human death during the 1997-1998 study period.9 Likewise, the proportion of deaths attributable to pit bulls has varied over time from 20% in 1979-1980, to 62% in 1987-1988, and down again to 22% in 1997-1998.10,8 Pit bulls are noteworthy in an additional respect. Although the most common fatality scenario in the 1997-1998 data involved a single unrestrained dog located on the owner's property, this was not the case for pit bulls, which were almost twice as likely to attack off the owner's property, as compared to other breeds.8

    Dog bite fatalities are reported to occur less often in other developed countries. In Australia, a country with slightly higher dog ownership than the United States (42% versus 39%), the dog bite fatality rate was .04 per 100,000, between 1979 and 1996, and in Canada the dog bite fatality rate was .03 per 100,000 in 1995.11 The U.S. rate of dog bite fatalities was .07 per 100,000 between 1979 and 1988.10 It should be noted, however, that direct comparison of dog bite data between differing countries is complicated by the variety of ways that bite data is reported and collected throughout the world. (http://www.enhs.umn.edu/current/6120/bites/dogbitefatal.html)

    ************************************************ “Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)” American Veterinarian Medical Association.

    http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep03/030915i.asp

    http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/nov00/s111500c.asp


    ~Christine

    ReplyDelete
  35. • 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 (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 under-inclusive 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)


    ~Christine

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your reply Herzeleid;

      You misunderstood what I said. You said I questioned the laws being effective, but the laws are obviously effective. What I asked if there was any data supporting if BSL’s were MORE effective than Breed Neutral Laws.

      When researching the ban in Denver this is what I found. http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Denver_fnl%5B1%5D.pdf

      Perhaps that is propaganda, but I couldn’t find any propaganda to the contrary so that is why I asked for data supporting the other position. I want to look at both sides of the issue and make up my mind on it.

      So if you have any data supporting BSL's being more effective than BNL's please share it.

      Delete
    2. Hopeful -

      I'm not sure how you could equate drinking the cool-aid from a pit bull propaganda site with "researching" the ban in Denver or anything else.

      Of course there is data that says BSL works. You even mentioned the link where Denver banned pit bull type dogs, and only pit bull type dogs, in response to a horrific mauling some years back. Denver is the only major US city not to have a fatality from dog attack in over 20 years. How is that not a success?

      It all boils down to this: The pit bull industry has proven that it can not and will not regulate itself. Every day there are new victims of pit bull attacks, and it's only getting worse over time.

      The entire purpose for the existence of pit bulls is now a crime. What is your justification for the ongoing bloodshed? Why is your desire to own an unpredictable torturer more important than our right to go about our lives without having loved ones (including animals) mauled to death because your pit bull "somehow" got loose?

      Delete
  36. Even the National Canine Research Council (NCRC), will not base their studies and/or reports on what the media reports because in most instances cases reported by the media, the type of breed mentioned is incorrect. The number of fatalities reported by the media is also incorrect.

    http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/in-your-state/california/dog-bites-2/
    http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/fearfactncrc1.pdf

    http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/dog-bite-fatalities-plummet.pdf

    http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/Dog-Bite-Prevention-Week-2010_NCRC.pdf

    Dog Bites
    What is a dog bite?

    While the question seems simple enough, the answer is not always what we imagine.

    Dog bite numbers offer little useful information about canine behavior. Dog bite numbers are simply a tally of the number of people who sought medical treatment and/or reported a break in skin after exposure to a dog’s nail or tooth–or in other words, the number of persons that have been injured interacting with a dog, which interaction may or may not have involved aggression.

    So, if dog bite numbers provide little useful information about canine aggression, then what do California’s dog bite numbers really tell us about canine / human interaction?

    First, they reveal that there is no “dog bite epidemic” in California.

    Increased awareness of the importance of humane care and control, the enactment and enforcement of leash laws, and dog bite prevention education, have all been instrumental in drastically lowering the number of reported dog-related injuries nationwide.

    Despite significant increases in the human and dog populations, cities and counties in California with dog bite data dating back to the 1970’s reveal extraordinary decreases in the number of reported dog-related injuries over the past 3 decades.

    Los Angeles has seen the number of reported dog bites decrease from well over 40,000 per year in the 1970s to less than 6,000 per year during past three years. (In 1975, the population of Los Angeles was approximately 2.9 million. By 2006, the population had grown to 3.85 million.)

    Sources: County of Los Angeles Public Health Reports (1955 data); “Animal Bites: Patterns and Treatment,” Ann Emerg Med, April 1981 (1975, 1976 data); Los Angeles County Veterinary Public Health (2005, 2006 data).
    National Canine Research Council


    ~Christine

    ReplyDelete
  37. Media based breed attributions are often arbitrary and lead us away from intelligent discussion.

    On October 3, 2009: Mary Garcia, a 70-year-old Adams County, Colorado woman was attacked by two loose roaming dogs and severely injured. She suffered a heart attack from her ordeal and has been upgraded from critical to stable condition at St. Anthony Central Hospital.

    The NCRC wishes the victim a speedy recovery from a senseless, terrifying and totally preventable attack.

    As seen all too often, the media has assigned arbitrary breed identifications to the dogs involved in this attack, and in doing so, have ignited useless discussions about breed behaviors that offer no useful information as to how or why this attack occurred.

    Additionally, the fact that this incident was 100% preventable is virtually ignored while discussions are focused on “breed.”

    When reading the breed identifications given by the Colorado media, it is interesting to note that while the dogs are reported to be “mother and son,” in some reports the breed attributions of the mother dog (Boxer mix?) seems to be “missing” in her offspring.

    CBS4Denver reported the dogs to be: Boxer mix (mother) and a Mastiff / pit bull mix (son)

    The Coloradoan.com reported the dogs to be: Boxer/pit-bull mix and the younger dog as a boxer/pit-bull/mastiff mix

    The DenverChannel.com reported the dogs to be: Pit bull mixes

    KDVR News reported both dogs to be: Pit bull mixes

    9News.com reported the dogs to be: Boxer/pit bull mix and a Boxer/pit-bull/mastiff mix

    Incredibly the Denver Post reported two different breed identifications in the SAME article: The two dogs — a Boxer mix and a bull mastiff-pit bull. — The dogs, a pair of mixed-breed pit bulls, who are mother and son, were taken to the Adams County Animal.

    Boxer? Mastiff? Bullmastiff? Pit bull? Boxer mix? Pit bull mix? Mastiff mix? Bullmastiff mix? Boxer-mastiff mix? Mastiff-pit bull mix? Boxer-pit bull mix? Boxer-mastiff-pit bull mix?

    Trying to figure out which of these breed attributions may be correct is a colossal waste of time and will ultimately yield no useful information.

    The simple fact is that an owner allowed his dogs to leave his yard and attack an innocent woman.

    How and why the owner allowed his dogs to get loose and attack this woman is the only discussion that will show this attack to be an entirely preventable tragedy.

    National Canine Research Council


    ~Christine

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'd like to remind anonymous posters to stay on topic, and kindly keep the posts short and to the point. Please answer the questions asked of you, and please do not bombard the readers of this site with a massive copy and paste of verbiage. That sort of thing gets caught in the spam trap.

    If you want to channel Karen Delise, Jane Saul Berkey or Ledy Van Kavage, please just provide a link to the relevant website instead.

    Thank you -

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Jake: yes I had an essay/novel sent to ya, didn’t I? Sorry about that (it was pretty long with too much in the way of sources n such…lol).

    @Digger – you, I enjoyed sparing with (maybe “sparring” is an incorrect term but that’s what’s coming to mind at the moment…lol). You spar with intellect and not fear based. I had quite a lot of material that I was trying to post, but it was truly too much and Jake is right in that novels are not needed on here.

    I believe I will stick with discussing the ongoing issue with my fellow rescue groups and veterinarians as we continue to work together to come up with a solution that would help both sides of the dog aggression issue. We do not focus simply on Pit Bulls, but on the aggression itself and irresponsible owners and breeders of all breeds and sizes that continue to contribute to the problem (and many other problem areas).

    The debate with regard to the fate of the Pit Bull and Pit Bull types will continue to who knows what conclusion. However, by using the media as a source to fan the flames of fear is just not the answer. In all of the rescues that I have conducted over the years, and from assisting in several veterinarian hospitals; what humans have done to animals (even to the very few Pits I’ve rescued and adopted out) boggle my mind to this day. And there are victims on all sides. If there was a way to make ALL irresponsible owners and breeders pay and it actually makes them stop, I and so many others from Florida, to Tennessee, to Oklahoma and California, will be among the first to sign the petition.

    ~Christine

    ReplyDelete
  40. @ Christine:
    Topic: Breed Confusion

    I do not ignore other breed attacks. And have told you time and time again that I document any that I can find. Both pit bulls and other breeds. Are you seriously even taking the time to read my comments? Or just hearing what you'd like to hear?

    Also, you're putting words in my mouth, bravo. I think that any dog that mauls or kills someone should be killed regardless of breed. I've never said or insinuated that I would dare to ignore other breed attacks. In fact, I spend a good deal of time looking for them when I have the time to spare. And here's what I've found.

    Even with 15 other breeds that have attacked, their cases have only come up to 30 or so. While the pit bull type and its breeds alone has come up to more than 87 victims and over 104 individuals.

    And yet again, you've provided no factual evidence, screen shots, or documents on your claims. When it comes to breed confusion, again... please acknowledge that your own community is trying to make people confused and deceived by providing poor comparisons and imagery for a breed standard. Please also acknowledge that there has been some examples of breed confusion on your part as well, such as mislabeling Prowler the pit bull as a mastiff.

    Is there some breed confusion? Yes. But while with most media is seems more as a mistake. The pit bull community is purposefully trying to deceive other people into believing that most pit bulls who attack are "not by pit bulls" or "they were abused". But from looking at the photos of the attacking pits I've gathered, that seems to be quite rare.

    Until you can provide evidence that there's some kind of mass breed confusion, then your opinion is just that, an opinion, and not to be touted about as a fact.

    I would still love to congratulate you for not doing your research my commentary and links in detail, and for making astronomically unsound presumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Christine

    Topic: NCRC

    I would not use the National Canine research as there have been several if not many contradictions and holes within their studies, Might I also add that the founders are pit bull lobbyists who insist on dismantling almost any law (even if it's not breed specific) that deals with canine responsibility? Do not believe me? Go see my articles on Ledy Vankavage.

    Maultalk: NCRC
    Craven Desires: NCRC Article 1
    NCRC Article 2
    NCRC Article 3

    They seem to have a higher propensity for stating things as facts then providing not evidence. And even worse, they seem to purposefully skew their statistics. Please read those articles to see what I mean.

    Topic: Rate Of Dog Attacks

    As for the rate of attacks, this would make sense. Reports of breed attacks did not seem to become common until the 80's or so, and even then, it seemed pretty infant in its occurrence of reports. It would also make sense that the rate of attacks would increase as the dog became more popular among idiots and novice dog owners. The pit bull was not a popular pet as people seem to suggest, but now that's become more true. Especially with the "cool , vicious , or lovable" side that the individual perceives the pit bull to be.

    There seems to be a dual problem. People who do not need to own certain breed or dogs at all owning those dogs in general. And people who treat those dogs like little people. Dogs thrive on a strict dictatorship unlike humans. Until people realize this again, it seems as though this along with other perversions in the canine's true general nature will cause more and more unnecessary frustration and attacks by dogs in general. With the most lethal coming from the end of a pit bull.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @ Christine


    Topic: What Is A Dog Bite?

    Simple, it's not a mauling or a fatality. For more information on my understanding of what a dog bite is. Feel free to go to the below posts and comment there.

    Replies: Hospitalization Of Dog Bites
    Hospitalization Of Dog Bites

    We should be able to agree that a bite is something that requires a stitch or two, at the most 5. A bite should never be categorized as something that requires dozens or hundreds of stitches or plastic surgery. And a nip would be something that does not draw a serious amount of blood.

    It's not confusing, the only people who seem to be "confused" about it is the majority of the pit bull community. I say "confused" in quotes as I believe it to be more borderline denial.

    ReplyDelete
  43. oh goodie, a copy and paste pit nutter drone. we know that christine is not thinking for herself, there is nothing that anyone can say to make an impact. i suspect that you are correct digger, she is not reading your comments. we can all go home now. good night everybody!

    ReplyDelete
  44. NCRC is a joke organization. In fact, so much so, that they should start trying to write jokes.

    Chrstine, do this. Ponder the topic and then find your best argument, and then post that.

    No one but the most ascetic will read everything you've copied and then come with an answer for each. Therefore, this may make you think you are having the upperhand when you are not. All that copying makes you appear to be very emotional about this. That can affect your thinking rather easily if you'll let.

    The thing about dobies having a decade, and then GSDs, etc; really is a non sequitur. Even if it is true, all it proves is that PEOPLE CAN BE WRONG. It does not prove anything concerning the pit bull debate. It really doesn't. It could be totally justified here. Remember the mouse who thought each time he took a step in the dark he would fall of the table. Well, after a few steps and no falls he came to the hasty conclusion that the table had no edge.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thank you Digger.

    Despite the absolutely fabulous title "National Canine Research Council", there never was a council and research was never done. It was just Karen Delise, a vet tech with no credentials, giving her opinion. She cites her own writings as sources for her information. The NCRC is now an owned subsidiary of the Animal Farm Foundation, a pit bull breed advocacy organization run by the VERY wealthy pit bull advocate Jane Saul Berkey. Delise's books were self published, you can publish anything if you pay for it. Now that Berkey owns the business, you can get the books free in the internet.

    In 1993 the AVMA Professional Liability Insurance Trust published a 40 page book, The Dos and Don'ts Concerning Vicious Dogs, Donald Clifford DVM et al. It can still be found with a very quick google search. The purpose was to protect kennel staff from maulings, and to protect the business interests of the veterinarians employing them. The book is VERY specific on the dangers of pit bulls. The dogs have not changed since 1993 but the business model for the AVMA has. It is now "follow the money."

    The ASPCA, another organization with a "BSL Alert" on its website, and an uncritical supporter of pit bulls, has produced a powerpoint presentation titled The Care of Pit Bulls in the Shelter Environment, Leslie Appel DVM. This is also a simple google search away. The purpose of the presentation is protection of shelter workers.

    It is just a shame that the AVMA and the ASPCA do not have the same regard for the public as they have for their own workers.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @ Christine:

    Anon 4:46PM is right on most if not all accounts.

    Just because Karen's books were published (self published at that) it does not make them automatically credible. Mein Kampf was published yet you only see the neo nazis conforming that it is historically and biographically accurate to a T.

    If you want to see on e major aspect in which she was wrong, just read four of Craven's articles which are linked below.

    Scapegoats: Part 1 - The Bloodhound
    Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs
    The Pit Bull Hoax: The ATTS
    The Nanny Dog Myth Revealed

    ReplyDelete
  47. actually, just reading the The Bloodhound will tell you everything need you to know about karen delise.

    check my links. i back up everything i say.

    ReplyDelete
  48. jake, we need to add sitting at computer to the list of attack trigger.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Wow, sitting at a computer. Who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  50. wiggle butt reminds me of the creepy glenn close character in fatal attraction, "I WON'T BE IGNORED DAN!"

    i know my cat always seemed to be jealous when i was absorbed in the computer.

    ReplyDelete
  51. here is the human garbage that sicced her pit on her sister (woman in photo above).

    ReplyDelete
  52. I'd hide my face too if I were her...

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thanks Craven, I was just about to comment about Christine's eloquent cut and paste style. I just love those who don't take the time to research their "sources". The AVMA, you need to bone up on that one, agribusiness vets, they make money off of puppy mills. Read about the head of the AVMA and how he left his high level government position because of his failure to do his job of busting puppy mills. Do your research people, sources aren't sources if they cater to money. NCRC,an LLC, a money making company. Geez.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "...pit bulls, at around 5% of the dog population in the USA, account for more deaths than the other 95% of dogs combined."

    Wait, one of out every 20 dogs in the USA is already a pit bull?!?! JTFC! Come on, middle class normals, this is getting ridiculous. Pit bulls do not need you stand up for them! The subnormals among us have already won the war.

    While you've spent your lives honoring such decrees as "spay and neuter your beagles," and "never buy pet store puppy mill poodles", the subnormals have been stuffing our shelters with [whatever YOU want to call a pit bull... any dog bred for its aggressive nature, skill, and/or appearance by criminal subnormals]s for generations. Keep "rescuing" them, fighting their natures for the next decade of your life, and giving responsible breeders one less family to breed an actually deserving retriever for. Great. Nice "rescue", doofus.

    Are we really going to undo [as many as] thousands of years worth of dog breeding because we can't call a spade a spade?!? STOP DENYING HOMES TO GOOD DOGS THAT WEREN'T ALLOWED TO BE BRED BECAUSE YOU HAD TO "RESCUE" SOME CRIMINAL'S GENETIC EXPERIMENT.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Christine...Excuses don't cut it... Animal People dot org studied the Mislabeling hypothesis and found out that even if you THROUGH OUT 2/3 of all attacks attributed to pitbulls and said they got the breed wrong the Pitbull would still be the leading killer, and mauler. ...So one to your next excuse that makes you jointly responsible for the maulings of innocent people... spreading excuses about the breed is Deadly.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This has to be Dawn James' handy work.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @anon 10:05

    I'm honored that you would think that! But this sort of information is out there and readily available. Google is your friend!

    ReplyDelete
  58. dogs are vary beautiful animals but some arnt ment to be pets or "indoor animals" people should do back ground checks on dogs befor getting one incase some one chooses a pitbull and you have a baby and somthing happens the dog attacks people should be more aware of ther choosings

    ReplyDelete
  59. TRIGGERS

    In the mind of *Elaine,
    A pit nutter insane,
    The gears of her brain
    Will persist to deny
    All the possible realms
    In which one could cast blame,
    Of the reasons a pit bull could be driven to maim.

    Someone fell in the street,
    Or was walking a dog,
    Or they had smelly feet,
    Or was taking a jog…

    Maybe was chewing gum,
    Or stuck out a tongue,
    Or was playing a drum,
    Or just acting too glum.

    Or maybe they sneezed,
    Had an infectious disease,
    Or was eating a bowl
    Of Kraft Mac and cheese.

    There’s bicycles, wheel chairs, strollers, and trampolines,
    Or the mere act of sitting on a porch with a magazine,
    Or being a mail carrier, or sharing Easter Candy,
    * Here’s a long list of others, please do keep it handy!

    When all else fails, to whom should get the finger
    Pointed at them in blame, now sit down, it’s a ringer!
    It is usually the victim, on their course doing errands,
    Or pursing those everyday mundane or fun gerunds.
    Nay, it’s never the pit bull, and it’s rarely the owners,
    And the apologist will have rebuttals that are all quite the groaners.

    ”THAT wasn’t a PIT BULL, they’re so SWEET and so TAME
    Clearly, it’s NOT a pit bull, CAN’T you TELL by its FRAME?
    And besides, there’s no such thing by this name,
    The American Pit bull, the dog you choose to defame,
    It is not a pit bull, no it’s not quite the same.
    Therefore your argument is really quite lame.”

    These are sweet harmless Nanny Dogs, dogs of great acclaim,
    The media’s biased, and they are to blame,
    For mass hysteria, YES that is their aim,
    For ratings, and money, it’s a horrible shame,
    And the dogs are blamed falsely,” so says the granddame.

    We can persist to deny, despite what numbers claim,
    Let’s flush Science and rational thought down the drain!
    We can go on for days,
    Examining ways,
    And we’ll persist to deny,
    It twarn’t D.N.A.!

    * A respected elder of the Pit Bull Tribe of Facebook

    http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/08/triggers-what-prompts-pit-bull-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  60. There are many causes for dog attacks, sadly, the owner is usually at fault, regardless of breed. There are MANY breeds of dog that people think are pitbulls and if we removed all of them, we'd still have plenty more dog types that would be overbred, under trained and abused that would end up attacking people. I've been attacked, by a man. Does that mean that all 6 foot, brown haired, brown eyed, 19 year old males of caucasion decent are going to attack me or that human males matching this description are more likely to attack? Don't be silly, humans are highly varied and to say that would to be a racist, right?

    One of the things that most people don't understand is that dogs need owners who are actually educated in handling, training and overall care. Socialization, proper handling and good training are a must for ANY dog, but especailly so for any dog who is around children or who are large enough to hurt someone.

    The bully breeds, sadly, are more prone to brain tumors than a lot of other dogs and I suspect there is a medical factor involved in some attacks we read about. Brain tumors are actually quite common in dogs, period. So if you have a dog with a sudden temperament change, or onset of seizures in middle age, please see your vet, if your dog has a tumor in their brain (just like people) they are not likely to continue to act normal forever.

    Hypothyroidism, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, cancer and other medical conditions can cause temperament changes in our dogs and ourselves.

    Of course, none of this matters, the media will continue to focus on the bad kids, the bad news and the bad dogs while the good dogs that live their lives being loving, joyful, gentle, obedient and excellent companions don't make the news at all. I've had Pitbulls for almost 30 years and I've rescued a lot of them, handled a lot of them, trained a lot of them in that time, that's why I keep getting more. They are smart, easy to train, silly, clownish, fun, gentle and trustworthy dogs. Every one of my dogs has loved orphaned kittens, wounded or orphaned wild birds, other dogs that were needing foster care, children, old people, my goats, pet rats and chickens. And yes, they are often left unattended with any of these. 30 years. That's a lot of experience and a lot of dogs, considering I've had more tha one dog at a time and I've rescued a lot of dogs.

    In that time, I've met a LOT of ignorant, ill mannered, mean spirited, angry, dangerous people and a few bad dogs, but the dogs, interestingly could be picked out even when they were not around, simply by watching their owners...

    ReplyDelete
  61. @anon 5:03 - well, you start with a list of rather mundane facts, which, while they may be true, don't have any relevance to the pit bull problem.

    Then you bring up racism, for some reason. The fact is, humans are all human. There are no major differences among people groups. When you mention crime, I think you may be confusing "race" with economic status. You might want to read "The rich get richer, the poor go to prison" for some insight there.

    Dogs, on the other hand, vary widely - a testament to their genetic adaptability. Not only is there a huge range of sizes and appearances, but an even bigger range of behaviors. There is one type of dog in particular which has been specifically bred for violence, and that is the type we call the pit bull. To say that stating the facts is somehow "racist" strikes me as rather silly.

    You make the curious assertion that pit bulls are especially prone to brain tumors, as if to explain away the disproportionate number of pit bull owners mauled to death by their pit bulls. While that is a popular meme, there is no evidence for it. Rather than invent a brain tumor to explain the violence, doesn't it make more sense to chalk it up to the fact the the pit bull was created specifically for violence?

    And of course, what pro pit bull comment would be complete without the old "I've had pit bulls for X years, and never had a problem" - and who could possibly doubt an anonymous internet keyboarder, right? If that is even partly true, I'd encourage you to send it in to Ripley's believe it or not - of course they may require some evidence. I suspect you're not telling the whole story, but even if there is something to it, that does not change the fact that pit bulls are by far the most likely breed to kill their owner, and to kill other animals. While there are bigger, stronger dogs, with higher bite force than pit bulls, they don't kill their owners. They simply don't have the genetic wiring that would drive them to do so.

    You finish up with the old "it's the owner, not the pit bull" routine, and so, given the spate of recent killings of experienced pit bull owners by their pit bulls, I'd like to ask you: Was Darla Napora a bad owner?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darla Napora was an irresponsible owner in my opinion because she rescued a dog and did not get it neutered. If there was a rescue organization involved they are also complicit.

      Delete
    2. @Hopeful -

      This is a new low for you, but we had to know it was coming, because your agenda has been clear to me from the beginning.

      One of the top rules for pit bull activists is "blame the victim".

      Don't connect the dots, don't look at what pit bulls were created to do, don't correlate this attack with the other similar incidents where pit bulls suddenly began torturing their kindly owners to death, above all, don't think! Just keep regurgitating the party line, and find some irrelevant factor to blame the attack on, anything except the fact that the pit bull was fulfilling it's purpose in mauling to death a victim for no particular reason, just as they were bred to do.

      What makes you think neutering the pit bull would have made any difference whatsoever on the outcome? Many neutered pit bulls have maimed or killed. But you're just regurgitating the propaganda from the pit bull propaganda mills, and didn't think anyone would notice that that emperor has no clothes.




      Delete
    3. A question was asked and I answered it. Bottom line is a responsible owner would have fixed that dog. Would it have saved her life? Who knows? I never claimed that it would. But please don’t tell people not fixing their dogs makes no difference because it does. It’s shameful that you stick to the lame pit bull alarmist propaganda claim that Darla was a “good owner” simply because she was a wonderful person and loved her dogs. It’s irresponsible of you to do that. Potentially dangerous dogs need to be treated a lot differently than your average beagle or teddy bear. There’s a lot more to raising a rescued dog than just giving it hugs and to suggest otherwise is reprehensible.

      Delete
    4. @"Hopeful One"

      Your meltdown had to happen eventually - you pit freaks can never hold it together for long. It was clear to me what you were up to when you first showed up, pretending to be an impartial concerned citizen, researching breed regulations, bah. I detected the reek of your foul agenda a mile away.

      You are reprehensible, lying and spreading your bullshit, smearing victims with your insane rants. You know absolutely nothing about Darla Napora, but you pretend to be some sort of fucking expert, and even then you can't bring yourself to stop bullshitting. Yes, pit bulls need to be treated differently than normal dogs. Why not go ahead and admit it, and stop hiding behind vague references to "potentially dangerous dogs".

      To pretend that all dogs are like pit bulls is the sort of criminal misinformation that is killing innocent victims every single day. You have blood on your hands, "hopeful one". You may sleep well, since sociopaths aren't bothered by conscience - but what goes around comes around, and you will eventually get yours.

      Delete
    5. Hopeful one -

      When did anyone here say that their dogs should not be fixed? Your accusation is without substance, as the only thing said on that score was that someone questioned your claim (as well they should) that Darla Napora's pit bull killed her because it was not neutered. It seems quite a stretch to blame a pit bull attack on such factors, given the fact that even spayed/neutered pit bulls commit more attacks than all other breeds combined.

      Re: your claim that anyone questioning your strange conclusions about Darla Napora is guilty of "pit bull alarmist propaganda" - what "pit bull alarmist propaganda" would that be, exactly? The fact that pit bulls kill their owners at a rate 5 times higher than all other breeds combined?

      No, that's a matter of record. The propaganda, in my humble opinion, is coming from those who try to suppress this information.

      Delete
  62. "I've met a LOT of ignorant, ill mannered, mean spirited, angry, dangerous people and a few bad dogs, but the dogs, interestingly could be picked out even when they were not around, simply by watching their owners..."

    true dat.
    non dog fighting pit bull owners slip nicely into one of 3 categories:
    1) belligerent psychopath types who either have a desire to intimidate everyone around them or flaunt their "superior" lion tamer skills by demonstrating their ability control the most fearsome dog.
    2) clueless politically correct morons who need to champion a cause (darla)
    3) the disenfranchised , the outliers who see the pit bull and themselves as oppressed and misunderstood by mainstream society.

    "I've had pit bulls for X years, and never had a problem"

    jake, i've tracked a lot of these down and consistently they are 20 something dingbats with their first pibble who has not yet reached the magical mauling age.

    ReplyDelete
  63. this is ridiculous. its all on how you train them and sometimes when people inject them with steroids and crap their heads get so big that it cracks their skull and pinches their nerves that is why most of the time they turn. ugh

    ReplyDelete
  64. i have pitbull tiger and i love mine and all of pitbull's pitbull yet, because i know who like to keep pitbull should know everything about it..

    ReplyDelete
  65. i love pitbull's breeds and i have one (Pitbull tiger)
    and i know very well :) who want to keep pitbull or another breeds like doberman or rottweiler should know everything about them, i belive these actiones coming from owner when you beat doberman you should wait for his/her answer:) attack

    ReplyDelete
  66. I don't have a lot to say other than all responsibility for a Pitbull attack should be placed on the owner unless provoked by whoever was attacked. I own a Pitbull and she has bitten one person (resulting in nothing but a red mark) but this was after he repeatedly smacked my dog in the face even though I tried to separate the two. He followed me and my dog and continued to smack her so she turned on him but I was able to quickly rein her in. In that sort of situation, it is most definitley the idiot's fault that he was bitten. I think owning a dog, especially a dog breed who is known to be more dangerous than others, shoulb be a priviledge and certain measures should be taken in order to be allowed to own one. Could be taking a class and getting certified to own the dog, putting the dog through obedience classes, and making sure to follow ALL laws to dog ownership. I also think even a background check is in order for owning some breeds. People who have felonies or any sort of serious criminal record should not be allowed to own a dog as they obviously cannot control themselves let alone an animal. I do believe in breed specific laws but they should be for owners, not against the breed. It should be neccesary for the owner to take certain measures. I don't believe a dog breed should be banned because of the irresponible things people have decided to do with them. As I said, I am a Pit owner. I take full responsibility for my dog's actions for it will ultimately be my fault for allowing my dog to do whatever she did. Unless of course provoked by the attackee. I cannot control someone if they decide to come up to my dog after I told them not to and directed my dog elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  67. These attacks are bad but its not just pitbull that attack and ALOT of people judge pitbulls to much there are alot of mean pitbulls but there are nice one's 2. its not the dog who really attacks its what the owner does with the dog that makes them attack really. I own a pitbull and she has never bit anybody! so don't judge pitbulls on the bad things you see them do!

    ReplyDelete
  68. @anonymous 11:53 -

    You are correct in saying that these attacks are bad - in fact the attacks are horrifying because they were trusted family pets.

    I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "a lot of people judge pit bulls" - I've actually never seen anything quite like the massive, determined effort to excuse and whitewash the horrific daily maulings by the pit bull lobby.

    If you really think "it's not the dog who really attacks it's what the owner does with a dog", then you haven't been paying attention. We see trusted "family pit bulls" attacking people literally every day. We see loose pit bulls kill beloved family pets every day, often in their own yards or even their own homes - pit bulls which were never abused, and never neglected. In almost every case, we hear the same sad lament: "... but it never showed any sign of aggression before".

    So, when you say "my pit bull is different, it's not violent" you are saying exactly the same thing as all the other pit bull owners in the aftermath of a sudden, unexpected, bloody and violent attack.

    You close with an admonition not to "judge" pit bulls, but it's really just a question of genetics. When a pit bull attacks and kills someone's dog, it is doing exactly what it was bred for. As long time pit bull breeder said, "a pit bull that hasn't killed another dog is a pit bull that hasn't been let outside".

    While that may be a bit of an exaggeration, his main point is accurate. The pit bull was bred to kill dogs, without mercy - and as a side effect, pit bulls kill more people than all other breeds combined.

    Last year, pit bulls killed 24 Americans and maimed hundreds. The only other type of dog with non-negligible attack stats was the Rottweiler, responsible for 4 deaths. All other breeds combined were responsible for a grand total of 5 deaths. If you were to remove pit bulls from the equation, dog attacks shrink to a small fraction of their present numbers, and the injuries become much less serious.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I didn't read all the comments, I stopped about half way down, but I did read the one about Pit Bull advocates having no idea of a way to solve the problem. I support pit bulls, I think it is our fault (humans in general) that they behave the way they do, whether it come from deliberate breeding or careless ownership. That said, I think that placing the responsibility for the attacks, financial and otherwise, in the owner's hands rather than the victim's would provide good incentive for owners to be more cautious. Pit bulls must be trained a certain way, and I think that making that information readily available would help tremendously. I may soon own a pit mix myself, and my research is what brought me here. It is imperative that potential owners are fully aware of the risks, and the ways to prevent bad behavior. So that's my two cents. That said, I love pit bulls and think that, if trained properly and closely watched, they can make great pets.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Not siding either way but here's the way I see it Pitts have a very high level of testosterone which leads to aggression if you breed two very aggressive dogs you can get a more aggressive one and so on but if you work backwards and breed and aggressive Pitt with something like a playfully boxer or s pit you get a less aggressive dog in reality the tendency for aggression is in the breeding but can be enhanced by the dogs treatment.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Well, we do know this...another 28 Americans have been killed by Pit Bulls since this blog entry was published!

    Fatal Pit Bull Attacks

    Still Zero movement by Pit Breeders to produce a safer dog...

    ReplyDelete
  72. Can you positively ID an American Pit Bull Terrier? All dogs are the same species. No one breed is responsible for 1000% of dog attacks. It used to be bloodhounds, German Shepards, Dobermans, and now the blame falls on the pit bull. Your 'warnings' are ludicrous. I suggest you read The Pit Bull Placebo. http://www.amazon.com/The-Pit-Bull-Placebo-Aggression/dp/0972191410

    I have three of these dogs with a six year old child. I doubt I will ever have another breed.

    And yes, if you support BSL then eventually YOUR dog will be targeted.

    ReplyDelete
  73. audrey, to be perfectly blunt, you're either a liar or dumb. choose your poison.

    1000%, is that a typo or further evidence of your stupidity? and no one here claims that pit bulls are responsible for ALL attacks.

    just about anyone can identify a pit bull even when they are missing their heads. but if all else fails, follow the trail of dead dogs and cats.

    KAREN DELISE lied to you. the bloodhound was never a problem.

    but i do recommend that everyone read the pit bull placebo aka the vet tech's pack o lies, the free version which is downloadable HERE.

    you have three pit bulls and will never have another breed. so they ARE different! stop your fear mongering. nobodies breed will be next.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I am writing my congressman and asking him to purpose a law that anyone who owns a dog that can fatally attack a person or their dog be accountable for that attack with 10 to 15 years in prison. ANY DOG. Now, lets see them put their life where their mouth is.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Replies
    1. It's as serious as a heart attack. What exactly about it do you find amusing?

      Delete
  76. Hi Herzeleid;

    I haven’t completely formed my solution to the pit bull problem nor have I stated it so I was surprised to read you stating it for me. You said, “your solution to the pit bull problem is to crack down on golden retriever owners.” That is not accurate. If you are referring to me looking into Non Specific Breed Laws it’s my understanding they target offending dogs and dog owners. Dog owners are held more responsible if their dogs injure or kill another animal or if they mistreat their dog or encourage fighting. If the golden retriever and his or her owner are well behaved, no problem; they wouldn’t be targeted under these laws. Sure, maybe dog licensing fees go up, but you have to pay for BSL’s from somewhere as well.

    The best solution to me seems to be Non Specific Breed Laws across the board and some additional requirements for potentially dangerous dogs.

    I’m not sure why you’re presuming to know my desire for a certain type of dog or asking me to justify past bloodshed or predicting a future mauling of a type of dog you think I will get in the future.

    If you have any questions about my dogs (or what dog I might plan to get in the future) I’d be happy to answer them as best I can.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @Hopeful -

    I'm gratified to hear you acknowledge that there is a pit bull problem, but at the same time I can't help but wonder at your pitch perfect recital of all the old, discredited pit bull activist talking points.

    At a minimum, I can agree with you that all dog owners should be held responsible for whatever damage, injury or death caused by their dogs.

    But unfortunately, as we have seen already, that is totally unacceptable to pit bull owners, who feel that they are being unfairly singled out just because pit bulls are responsible for more bloodshed than other breeds.

    While the plan seems to make sense, the devil is in the details after all, and that's where you folks lose the plot. The real problem here is that your supposed solution to the problem is just business as usual. Your policy is strictly reactive; nothing is done until blood has been shed. How many free maulings, and how many free killings would a pit bull get under your rule?

    While I agree that simply holding the owners of maulers responsible would be progress, it's still playing whack-a-mole and waiting for each new victim (and there will be many) to react one crisis at a time. Why not be proactive and work to prevent the suffering and bloodshed?

    How do you determine a potentially dangerous dog? Do you play whack-a-mole, wait for a pit bull to turn on and attack, and then designate it potentially dangerous? Or do you work proactively to prevent such attacks?

    As to your misunderstanding, I'm asking how you justify all the future bloodshed which is guaranteed to happen given your proposed rules.

    What kind of dog you have is your business. If you have a torturer breed, my only wish is that you keep it properly confined so that it can't hurt others.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Jake I said, “Bottom line is a responsible owner would have fixed that dog. Would it have saved her life? Who knows? I never claimed that it would.”

    After I posted that you continue to piggy back on Dick Johnson’s false assumption that I said getting the dog neutered would have saved her life. The pit bull alarmist propaganda I referred to picks one simple story line and doesn’t look at any other factors. Perhaps that is why you were making the false assumption that I was promoting one reason alone accounted for her death. That would be irresponsible propaganda. I would never do such a thing. I will quote myself again on this issue so everyone is clear and another person isn’t swept up into more false assumptions. “Would it have saved her life? Who knows? I never claimed that it would.”

    Pit bull owners are 5 times as likely to be killed by their dog you said. Any facts are welcome, if they are referenced with a link and the criteria is given over which the data was measured that is even better. I applaud you for getting facts out to the public. It would also help me if you would go back and define “pit bull” because you have yet to do so and I’ve asked you several times to clarify that. Was it 25% pit bull in the DNA or some other number or your own visual guess that everyone should trust?

    If you reply to me again, I suggest quoting me so you can pause from that spat you are having with the imaginary foe that you think is me and comprehend what I’ve actually written.

    If you quote me I will reply. If not, I hope you resolve that other dialogue with your foe who you keep mistaking for me. I regret to say I’m feeling totally left out.

    Either way, I wish you luck with reading what everyone has to say in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  79. @Hopeful one -

    Your rapid fire spamming of our comment section is getting so tiresome that you can't even keep track of what you said. Case in point: you just quoted me as saying:

    "Bottom line is a responsible owner would have fixed that dog. Would it have saved her life? Who knows? I never claimed that it would."

    But you are in fact quoting yourself, from a comment above, made on June 13th at 6:19 PM.

    With that level of confusion on your part, is it any wonder that nobody can understand what your point is? I don't have any hope that you're open to reason. but for the sake of those reading in future, I'll try to address at least some of your points.

    I'm not sure why you are again demanding the definition of a pit bull (why is it that the pit bull promoters seem to be the most confused of all when it comes to the definition of a pit bull?) since that has been patiently explained that to you in the other posts you commented on.

    You don't like our statement about the facts on dog attacks indicating that pit bulls kill their owners at a rate 5 times higher than all other breeds combined? Rather than react to your demand that we spoon feed you the facts, here's an assignment: Use your search engine of choice and find all the cases in which a dog which was a family pet killed an owner who raised it. For every non-pit bull type dog you find meeting this criteria, we'll find at least 5 cases of a pit bull type dog doing the deed. Fair enough?

    As to your tiresome insistence that pit bulls are being blamed for attacks by non pit bulls, and your questions about percentages of pit bull DNA and visual identification, I think you're really in denial of reality when the owner of an attacking pit bull says it's a pit bull, the responding emergency personnel say it's a pit bull, and images and videos clearly show a pit bull type dog, yet you insist there is a media conspiracy to blame pit bulls for these attacks. You folks claim the attacks are the work of some completely unrelated mystery breed which somehow happens to look just like a pit bull.

    But in reality, we know that oranges don't grow from oak trees, and horses don't give birth to hyenas. A dog doesn't "just happen" to look like a pit bull. The fact that the appearance and behavior of a dog conforms to its breed has been a well known fact for some centuries - but pit bull activists don't accept that, do they? it's all a media conspiracy, isn't it?

    You folks would have a lot more credibility if you would just stop trying to argue every damn point, stop the propaganda and just admit that the particular expression of canine traits which comprise the breed you advocate was developed specifically for purposes which are a crime, and that these traits make for a dangerous and unpredictable animal.

    You insist on portraying these "unpredictable torturers" as some have aptly called them, as being "just like any dog". You could take a lesson in honesty from advocates for some of the other breeds. For instance, Akita breeders put you folks to shame. They clearly describe the genetic traits and the inherent risks in raising an Akita, while you folks spew "nanny dog" myths. And the irony is that pit bulls cause far more carnage than Akitas ever have.

    Caucasian Shepherd breeders are quite honest about the characteristics of their breed, and caution people not to adopt one unless they are well prepared, committed, knowledgeable, and competent. Meanwhile you folks spam sites with pit bull propaganda.

    And while obscenely violent, unprovoked pit bull attacks like this one this one are the norm, you people continue to justify and make excuses for the breed, attack victims, and annoy and harass anyone who tries to speak openly about the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Hopeful One, your demands for attention, have in effect, amounted to a denial of service attack.

    We have to wonder why you don't channel your efforts into something more original. Why not start your own mauler propaganda blog? You're already on blogger, since 2012 according to your profile. Unfortunately that profile is locked down so tight that nobody can verify that you even exist; it doesn't even allow for the possibility of contacting you via email for follow-up questions (what's the big secret?) While you apparently prefer instead to use this blog as your personal soapbox, I think it's safe to say that you've used up your quota and then some. The folks here have been nice enough to keep publishing your comments, even though your carefully crafted story has disintegrated into disjointed rants and repetitions of the same old pit bull propaganda talking points that we've heard so many times before.

    I just don't see the point of trolling other people's blogs to get a rise out of them.

    Best of luck, and here's looking forward to seeing your blogging efforts!

    ReplyDelete
  81. Most owners who are killed by their dogs are not young women who treat them with love. She was the exception to the rule - but some people want to make an exception into the rule.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Dog Ed - Could you be so kind as to go through the 60 or so people who have been mauled to death by their pit bulls and give us the breakdown? I don't recall any gang bangers or dog fighters among them, but I do remember normal owners who treated their pit bulls well. I've never gone through the drill of tracking them all down, but now that I'm thinking about it, that would be an educational experience. I'll do that myself and post the results here. As for the owners killed by non pit bull breeds, it's such a rare event that it's difficult to draw any conclusions from so few random data points, or to spot any trends with such a low signal to noise ratio.

      Delete
  82. Pitbulls just like fresh meat. That's all.

    ReplyDelete

  83. Dogs that look deformed are often breeds that don’t have any more working lines and the show line breeders completely took over. Working lines in breeds are healthy and look similar to their ancestors. For example many show line German Shepherds are very different from working line and Czech German Shepherds that I think they should eventually be considered different breeds. If you want to preserve a breed and keep dogs looking like dogs, the working lines have to be preserved. Looking for large dog breeds for families Wondering what large dog breeds are good with kids or would be good for apartments Find out here A complete list of large dog breeds

    ReplyDelete
  84. We should be ashamed at all remaining aspects of permitted animal cruelty in our mainly civilized countries. Historically, however, things do gradually change for the better. One tiny local example of this was when, in 2004, the law in Britain was changed so that people were no longer permitted to set dogs onto deer, hares and foxes etc so that these animals could be literally torn apart. Those activities were in a similar league to cock fighting and dog fighting and no one would seek to justify bringing those back – or wouldn’t they in a world where people still go to cheer watching bulls being tortured to death. Looking for large dog breeds for families Wondering what large dog breeds are good with kids or would be good for apartments Find out here A complete list of large dog breeds

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting site but it looks like it's still under construction. I love big dogs, so I'll be curious to see what it looks like when all the breed descriptions are filled in. I have to wonder at your inclusion of pit bulldogs in the "terrier" group though.

      Delete

Comments accepted only on current articles.

In order to keep the signal to noise ratio within reasonable limits, we reserve the right not to publish any comments deemed inflammatory, repetitious, inane, comments which contribute nothing other than drama, or comments which appear to be a copy and paste of talking points that have no discernible connection to the article at hand.

Note: If there is no apparent means of emailing you for clarification or follow-up, don't expect your comments to be published.