Posted on 03/18/2006 8:00:15 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
A breed ban is just as rational as a race ban in people. In 1999, the AKC, UKC, and ADBA registered more "pit bull" type dogs than any other breed. Today, the breed represents almost 10% of the entire population of dogs, and that is just the pure bred ones. Yet, you don't see four million deaths a year. More like 3 deaths. The vast majority of these dogs live their entire lives as happy pets, never doing anything that any other breed doesn't do. The difference is that since they are so powerful, when they DO attack, it is a big deal. Not only that, but many times, when a dog attacks someone, the media, police, or other uneducated people will call the dog a pit bull because that's what they think it is. Many dogs have been mistaken for pit bulls and reported as such, so that is the big headline you see. Most of the time when there is a correction to be made, it isn't published, or the actual breed is never found out. There are also lots and lots of responsible pit owners out there, but since their dogs aren't messing up, you don't hear about them. You only hear about the dogs that escape (because idiots will not keep track of their dogs to ensure they can't leave the yard, don't neuter them, or just let them run loose)the dogs that attack people entering the yard/house, and the most is children, who are never taught how to act around dogs in the first place. The breed went from being the symbol of America, a hero, and nanny dog, to a vicious, unpredictable monster? These dogs are still dogs. Nothing has changed, except for their popularity. We went through the same thing with German Shephards, Dobermans, Chows, Rottweilers, and even Great Danes. No reporter would ever quote dog bite statistics, because there are no ratings in cocker spaniels, dalmations, and schnauzer attacks.
"More like 3 deaths."
You lost me right there. You are way, way, way off!
"Canine inflicted homicides have remained at the same general level (15 to 20 annually), which cannot be said for the number of dog bites, which is too high (5 million annually) and appears to be growing higher (see statistics, above). Considering the fact that there are 65 million dogs in the United States (see above), the homicide problem is minuscule. This is not to denigrate it, but to point out that eliminating it entirely would save only 15 to 20 people, out of the 5 million who are bitten by dogs." quoted from dogbitelaw.com. This is the total deaths by all breeds. Pit bulls and Rottweilers represent about half of that number, which is about 8-10, for both breeds, so yeah, I was off by a little, but not much. I am of the opinion that every life counts. I feel deeply sorry for anyone who has ever lost a loved one in a dog attack, as it is one of the most brutal ways to go. However, here is another interesting tidbit:
"However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.)" taken from the same source. Here's something else:
"The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"
A better read with shocking Acturials about Pits. Were not talking about bites, were talking about trips to the ICU and the morgue.
http://www.animaladvocates.com/dangerous-dogs/Dog%20attack%20deaths%20and%20maiming82%20to%20feb%202005.pdf
"Apologist" does not describe me. I am in no way apologising for the breed, myself, or anything else for that matter. Yes, pit bulls are genetically hard-wired to fight to the death--with other dogs, not people. Anyone who has done any kind of research on the breed knows that in the fighting ring, if a pit bull bit, attacked, or even growled at a person, it was culled. If a pit bull attacks a person unprovoked, it is a bad representative of the breed. These dogs were bred to not injure a person no matter how heated the battle got with the other dog. Not only that, but these dog fighters used to wash each other's dogs to ensure that there was nothing put on the skin to hurt the other dog. They had to be people friendly. I am not in any way condoning dog fighting, as I think it is a sick thing to do, but I am stating the facts. The dog aggressive tendencies bred into them are no different than the human friendly tendencies that were bred into them at the same time. Anyone trying to breed these dogs to be something other than that is breeding an abberation, not true to type. And I DID state statistics on deaths, if you had bothered to read it. My quote about the pomeranian wasn't to show that I believe all poms are dangerous. It was just to show that any dog can bite, and any dog may be capable of killing a person. There have been about 30 different breeds of dogs responsible for human deaths that have been reported. Also, remember that the media, uneducated witnesses, police officers, and even animal control officers have all wrongly identified these dogs. There are many many people who have been relied upon to determine the breed of a dog who are simply not qualified to do so. http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
I wonder how many of you can go to this site and correctly guess the first time. Even experts who have been around them for years take a few trys before guessing right. This is a great example of why it is so hard to sometimes identify the right breed. For one, their standard states they should only grow to about 60 pounds. Many of the news articles I read lately involve 100+ pound dogs, more like American Bulldogs, not pit bulls. Not to mention the fact that many people who unscrupulously breed pit bulls for money tend to mix mastiffs, dobermans, mutts, etc. in to make the dog more aggressive. These are mutts, no matter what percentage of pit bull are in them. And, pit bulls are the number one most stolen dog, not only because people steal them to fight, but because they can. Many of these dogs just aren't good at guarding, and will happily follow their captor out of their own back yard. (The ones that are true to the standard have never been good at it. Too trusting towards people.) And lastly, I am getting all my information not from experience with the breed, which I do have, but I am getting all this info from factual accounts and statistics from true experts. People who have done studies and unbiased reports for the good of dog owners as well as the general public. Not from my sister's boyfriend, or the 6 o'clock news, or the politician that has never even seen a dog. I really think that if you all just did a little research yourselves, you would find that what the media says, and what is the truth are two completely different things.
"if a pit bull bit, attacked, or even growled at a person, it was culled"
The weak ones that died in the pit were culled also. It's foolish to believe you can take the Pit out of the Pit Bull.
These two Pits must have mistakenly identified this unfortunate victim.
http://www.chicoer.com/newshome/ci_3622848
Oh yes, and almost forgot this one:
According to the American Canine Temperament Testing Association, 95%of the American Pit Bull Terriers that took its temperament test passed, compared to a 77% passing rate for all breeds on average. Furthermore, APBTs had a passing rate that was the fourth highest of all 122 breeds tested. So, according to unbiased facts, this breed of dog is less likely to bite or attack unprovoked than a golden retriever. Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself.
http://www.atts.org/stats1.html The website is here for anyone interested in seeing which breeds of dog do well and don't. The only reason there are more deaths from strong dogs like pit bulls and rottweilers is because they are very strong. There are also quite a few deaths occurring from huskies, german shepherds, great danes, and saint bernards, to name a few. It's not because these dogs are mean, it's just numbers. Sooner or later an attack leads to a fatality in any strong breed. And, compared to the sheer amount of pit bulls in the population now, the percentage of them that are biting, attacking, or causing fatalities is infinitesimally small. Oh, not to mention anytime a pit bull mix is reported, or even if its assumed to be mixed with a pit, doesn't have to be proven, they report it as pure pit bull. Nevermind the other breeds which shaped the attitude of the dogs. You hear a lot on the news also because many of these reports tend to air for weeks at a time on every station. A lot of them end up being the same story, but due to human error, names, places, breeds of dog, and events are skewed. So you see five articles in a month's time about pit bulls and think "wow, they're out of control" but what you don't realise is all those reports are the same dog. Please, I beg of you, if you are going to post things about this subject, do yourself and the community a favor and do some research also. You never know how your opinion may change with a little more information. I used to despise pit bulls too, until a friend of mine introduced me to four of his dogs, all of which led happy lives and died of old age, never hurting anyone.
While you all are citing news reports, I am showing actual facts on the breed, and you are completely ignoring it. Yes, it is sad that some dogs attack people, but for every news article you read about a pit bull attack, remember that there will be many more not reported because the dog wasn't one. And of course, with any breed, there are dogs that just aren't right in the head. My boss was attacked by a great dane a few months ago. Why didn't she report it? She didn't want to raise a fuss. Why didn't I report it when a pomeranian attacked me and literally bit off my thumbnail? I was 13, and didn't know any better. I should have reported it. But you know, something tells me that the response from a reporter or police officer may have been more along the lines of laughter than anything serious. Why didn't my brother's friends report it when my mom's labrador jumped out of the car window, ran into their house and attacked their dog on the couch? Or when my friend from high school was attacked by a airedale terrier, requiring stitches in his scalp? They weren't supposed to be those kinds of dogs. Something spooked them. They weren't normally like that. They must have been messed with. Maybe they were sick. People will think of the most off-the-wall excuses for mr. froo-froo, but when it comes to a big, scary looking dog, automatically the news must be written, and the dog must be vicious.
 |
This is just a saddening commentary on the state of Dog Nation. Our barkconquista's progress is being hampered by these out of control fools biting children and getting shot up. The Movement's success is dependent on cohesive implementation of parallel dog deployment. Freelance operations by rogue personnel is henceforth prohibited. (signed> Bigness |
The link I posted had very up to date stats on deaths and maulings which you chose to ignore. Here's a comparison of the Labrador vs Pit Bulls attacks from 1982 through 2004.
Hospitalizations, Deaths, Maimings
Labrador 19, 0, 15,
Pit Bulls 891, 82*, 485,
*Doesn't include the 15 Pit Bull Mauling deaths which occurred in 05.
Nuff said...
It is not that I have ignored your website. I simply cannot access it due to problems with adobe acrobat. I tried. I will try to access the site and see if there is a way to view it without acrobat. I believe in looking at everything, because if I didn't, then my opinion would be an ignorant one. I will, however, tell you that of the 30 breeds of dog that have killed someone, labs are on there.
With that in mind, here is a list breeds that have caused at least one fatality within the past two decades:
Akita; Australian Shepherd; Boxer; Bulldog; Bullmastiff; Chesapeake Bay Retriever; Chow Chow; Cocker Spaniel; Collie; Coonhound; Dachshund, Doberman; Golden Retriever; Great Dane; Hound-"type" (may include crossbreeds); Husky; Japanese Hunting Dog; Labrador Retriever; Lhasa Apso, Malamute; Mastiff; Mixed-breed (where dog was known to be a mixed-breed, does not include dogs whose breed was not known); Newfoundland; Pit bull "type" (may include crosses or misidentified individuals); Pomeranian, Rhodesian Ridgeback; Rottweiler; German Shepherd Dog; Saint Bernard; Sheepdog; Sled-"type" (may include crossbreeds); Terrier-"type" (may include crossbreeds); West Highland White Terrier; Wolf/Dog hybrid, Yorkshire Terrier.
Another note. There is more than one very small dog breed on here, and this is just in the past 20 years. And I have to wonder. Not bashing your source, but if mine shows Labradors on the list of dogs which have caused fatalities in the last 20 years, and yours does not, it could be that the site you chose to post may have a biased author. My statistics were taken from an unbiased source which counts any and all attacks that are reported. Death being as serious as it is, and considering the unlikelihood of the author to have a secret malcontempt for labs, I will stand by my findings.
Also, something else that was quoted earlier:
Canine inflicted homicides have remained at the same general level (15 to 20 annually), which cannot be said for the number of dog bites, which is too high (5 million annually) and appears to be growing higher (see statistics, above). Considering the fact that there are 65 million dogs in the United States (see above), the homicide problem is minuscule. This is not to denigrate it, but to point out that eliminating it entirely would save only 15 to 20 people, out of the 5 million who are bitten by dogs.
If there were 15 deaths just by pit bulls last year, how come the number is roughly the same every year? I do believe those stats you found are unreliable.
Here's an old "unbiased" CDC study which shows the Pit Bulls causing over twice as many deaths and the second breed on the list. PitBulls are more popular now thus the increase in incidents.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm
Nobody wins on this issue, not the victims, not the innocent dogs Pits kill, and not the Pits themselves. Even Peta is for banning the breed since unscrupulous breeders sell them to fools that can't handle them or get homeowners insurance and they end up at the Pound. The result is that thousands of Pits are euthanized on a monthly basis in dog pounds all over this country. The only ones making out on the deal are the breeders.
I have never stated that they weren't on the top of the list. The Center for Disease and Control also says on that very page:
"Although some breeds were disproportionately represented in the fatal attacks described in this report, the representation of breeds changes over time (Table_1). As a result, targeting a specific breed may be unproductive; a more effective approach may be to target chronically irresponsible dog owners (9)."
Some years there were very little numbers, and others, very large numbers. I agree with you that it does have everything to do with the number of them in the population, as they are now one of the most popular breeds. About 3 years ago, they were the number one registered breed in the United States, making up roughly 10 percent of the entire dog population, so of course the numbers will show it. And as for PETA, well, they are extremists in the worst sense of the word. They actually want to phase out pets entirely. As an animal lover, part of me agrees that we shouldn't have them because I am sure they aren't living the lives they should be, but if PETA had their way, no one would even have a goldfish, and everyone would be vegan. Due to their terrorism in recent years they have lost any and all clout they may have once had as a respectable organization.
But back to the point, the numbers on the site are a few years old because the CDC no longer does them. They have said it is simply too risky to rely on random people to describe a breed of dog in an attack, and furthermore they urge people to focus their attention on education of owners so that they can control their dogs no matter what the breed. That is the real problem, as quoted above. And yes, back yard breeders are a bane to this breed. They are in most cases the exact root of the problem. The breeders who actually take the time and money to temperament test, health test, and provide the best veterinary care don't make anything off of breeding dogs, and should only be interested in improving the breed, not making poorly bred, mentally off dogs for money. If it were up to me, the breed would not be banned, but people should have to get all non-showing dogs and dogs with any temperament issue whatsoever fixed, and they should have all their dogs temperament tested and licensed, like they do in Germany. Not just that breed, any breed. There are many people out there with little butt holes for dogs because they think because the dog is small, or cute, or whatever that it's ok for them to raise hell. So strong dogs like pits, rotts, shepherds, etc. can't make those same mistakes. They will hurt someone simply due to owner stupidity. I believe that everyone should be held to the same standard. Any human-aggressive dog needs immediate action. But not an entire breed.
The latest victim..."Rosie"
http://www.wkrn.com/node/11148#top
Yes. It is a tragedy. Those dogs should not have been allowed to run loose, and the owner should be held responsible. Any person owning a dog has a responsibility to make sure that dog doesn't escape it's yard. But there are lots and lots of dog attacks. These dogs have been bred to fight other dogs, and so they did, to the death. However, dog aggression is different than human aggression. If they had wanted to attack a person, they would have. They wouldn't need to even try, it would just happen. There are many breeds of dog that aren't dog friendly, and pit bulls are just one of them. This article, though very sad, is not the same as a human attack.
It's not Bravo Sierra but Delta Sierra, your mindset that is... click here
...responsible owners make responsible dogs!
WOW LETS GET THINGS STRAIGHT, ANY DOG IS CAPABLE OF ATTACKING REGARDLESS OF BREED IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT WHEN A PITBULL BITES SOMEONE IT SELLS, BUT WHEN A LAB OR A COLLIE ATTACKS NO ONE CARES TO BUY THE PAPER NOR WILL IT SEND MASS MEDIA RATINGS THROUGH THE ROOF.P.S IM A VET AND EXPERT DOG TRAINOR AND HANDLER AND TWO OF MY FIVE DOGS ARE PITBULLS AND THEY ARE DICSIPLINED LIKE HIGH RANKING MARINES. GO FIGUER.
Yea, and what about the 15-year-old gang banger down the street that has pittbulls also. Or the guy and his wife that work days while their pittbulls roam the neighborhood killing neighbors cats.
You are the exception and the rules should not be made for you (although you will have to be caught up in them). Ban All Pitbulls in residential neighborhoods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.