Replies

The dogs were never bred to be human aggressive. They were bred as working dogs, hog dogs, gripping dogs, and finally, for dog fighting. They were CONCURRENTLY bred to be extremely human submissive, so that dog fighters could separate them in the heat of a fight without fearing a redirected bite. They are not time bombs, they do not snap, and they are not vicious, snarling beasts. They are just dogs that happen to be popular with the wrong crowd, as German Shepherds, Dobies, and even Bloodhounds have been in the past.

If they were as bad as you say, the average amount of deaths from dogs would go up drastically, considering there are an estimated 10 million of these dogs in this country. Since pit bull-type dogs have become the most popular type of dog, the average number of fatalities has remained the same. They have simply replaced other breeds that were once popular, but they have not added to the numbers. The fatalities have been slowly rising only due to increases in both human and canine populations.

www.atts.org -This site displays the results of temperament tests on dogs, specifically geared towards unprovoked aggression. You can see where your favorite breed ranks here, as well as comparing it to the American Pit Bull Terrier, which scores better than many “friendly” breeds.

www.cdc.gov - There is a study on this site that compiled over a decade worth of dog bite related fatalities. Many pit bull ban supporters use parts of this study out of context to try and show that pit bulls are dangerous, but if you read what the authors of the study actually found, you will see that irresponsible dog ownership is the most common factor in dog attacks, and breed is incidental only due to popularity. It also shows that the breed of dog in the number one spot changes every few years to match the popularity of certain breeds.

www.kcdogblog.com - This site lists the last couple of years of dog bite fatalities, listing the breed of dog involved, the care the dog received, the details leading up to the attack, and even the income level of the area. Last year, 19 people died from dogs that were not pit bulls, yet the details of each attack (the level of irresponsibility of the dog owners) were identical to those of the pit bull attacks.

There is certainly a lot of information that is misused, misunderstood, and generally ignored, and because of this, many have a completely backwards idea of what the problem really is. With a little bit of research, we can see that irresponsible dog ownership is the cause. Places that have banned pit bulls have seen NO DECLINE in serious attacks. Places that have instead opted for tougher dog ownership laws that affect all dog owners have seen DRAMATIC DECLINES in serious attacks. Many places with bans are now considering repealing them for laws that target irresponsible owners. Several countries have already done this, and the UK is in the process of doing the same, after finding their serious attacks INCREASING since their bans.

I understand when you say the dogs were not bred to be human aggressive but dogs of all breeds do not always recognize a baby or small child as a human. They are down on the dogs eye level and are viewed as they would another dog or any other animal. If the dog and the baby were both being fed then the dog might have though the baby was after his food. I had a JRT that bit my granddaughter when she was a toddler. She went over and looked in the dogs food dish and the dog protected his food. I didn't come up with this theory by myself I was told this 3 Texas A&M veterinarians.

The dogs were never bred to be human aggressive.

Neither were cobras.