Pit Bull down the hall

[fairisfair]

I gave my dog back to original owner. I saw him a few times with the new owner in a pickup.

*****

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.
According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:
If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.
Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."
The financial impact of dog bites
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

sorry but the clifton study doesn't mean diddly squat to me. It merely says that he chose a certain number of cases, and of those case this was the percentage. As Xylene has pointed out, that kind of statistical nonsense can be manipulated however the author chooses.

 

[Alaska landlord]

sorry but the clifton study doesn't mean diddly squat to me. It merely says that he chose a certain number of cases, and of those case this was the percentage. As Xylene has pointed out, that kind of statistical nonsense can be manipulated however the author chooses.

I get it; no amount of statistical data will deter you from what you believe. You have good dogs ergo all Pitbulls are good dogs and if not, then it’s the victim or the owners fault if the animal attacks.

 

[moburkes]

Can't we all just get along?

 

[fairisfair]

I get it; no amount of statistical data will deter you from what you believe. You have good dogs ergo all Pitbulls are good dogs and if not, then it’s the victim or the owners fault if the animal attacks.

that is hardly statistical data. If it were, then the second part of your ludicrous statement would in fact be true. Yes if I obtain my statistical data based on the 3 pit bulls that reside in my home, then yes, all pitbulls would be good dogs. The same way that if Clifton chooses 100 dog bite cases and 74 percent of them happen to be pitbulls that means that for every 100 dog bites there WILL be 74 pitbulls involved. it just doesn't work that way.

however, YES it is ALWAYS the owner's fault if a dog attacks. That I will agree with.
If an animal is properly trained, monitored or restrained, whatever is necessary, then YES an owner can ALWAYS prevent an attack.

 

[fairisfair]

Can't we all just get along?

not while they are dissing the bull.

 

[Some Random Guy]

that is hardly statistical data. ... The same way that if Clifton chooses 100 dog bite cases and 74 percent of them happen to be pitbulls that means that for every 100 dog bites there WILL be 74 pitbulls involved. it just doesn't work that way.

Actually, Cilfton chose 2209 cases, not a measly 100, and these cases were chosen based on 2 factors - they were reported in the press, and the press account identified the dog breed. Therefore, we have a decent size sample for analysis and must determine if the sampling method skewed the results.

Dog bites are "news" in the sense that news sells newspapers. Therefore, the likelihood that attack would be reported would be influenced by the seriousness of the attack and whether a child or otherwise innocent individual was involved. Another factor would be that "rampaging pit bulls" is a hot button issue in the media and any pit bull attack would likely interest more readers.

I personlly think that a severe and unprovoked attack would be more likey to cause the incident to be reported than the fact that the animal was a pit bull. But that last part is just my opinion.

What is telling is that statistics about human fatalities have shown that 66% relate to pit bull type breeds. Human fatalities are definitely newsworthy and the decision to report in th enewspaper or not wouldn't be skewed by any reporter bias against pit bulls.

 

[nextwife]

that is hardly statistical data. If it were, then the second part of your ludicrous statement would in fact be true. Yes if I obtain my statistical data based on the 3 pit bulls that reside in my home, then yes, all pitbulls would be good dogs. The same way that if Clifton chooses 100 dog bite cases and 74 percent of them happen to be pitbulls that means that for every 100 dog bites there WILL be 74 pitbulls involved. it just doesn't work that way.

however, YES it is ALWAYS the owner's fault if a dog attacks. That I will agree with.
If an animal is properly trained, monitored or restrained, whatever is necessary, then YES an owner can ALWAYS prevent an attack.

Proper socialization and training are critical.

There's a couple of problems with pits:

Too many irresponsible breeders breeding FOR aggressiveness, or breeding in other ways that are irresponsible.

Too many bad dog owners attracted to pit ownership. In other word, an explosive combination: people who don't properly attend to and socialize their dogs are choosing a breed that is being more irresponsively bred than most other breeds. And of course, the earlier stated problem that an aggressive pitbull is physically capable of far greater damage than , say, an aggressive Schipperke.

Actually, I own a Schip, and I challenge anyone to find even a SINGLE report anywhere of a fatal Schipperke attack (fatal to non-rodents). And there have to have been some bad Schip owners along the way.

My personal opinion is that dogs larger than say, 25lbs don't belong in apartment building, period. People should be able to walk the halls of their home without being in fear. People should refrain from becoming dog families until they are settled into a single family, or seperate entrance type of residence., Much as I loved dogs, I held off getting one until I had a house for that dog to live in. In my apartment days, I felt it inappropriate to take on a dog.

 

[fairisfair]

Proper socialization and training are critical.

There's a couple of problems with pits:

Too many irresponsible breeders breeding FOR aggressiveness, or breeding in other ways that are irresponsible.

Too many bad dog owners attracted to pit ownership. In other word, an explosive combination: people who don't properly attend to and socialize their dogs are choosing a breed that is being more irresponsively bred than most other breeds. And of course, the earlier stated problem that an aggressive pitbull is physically capable of far greater damage than , say, an aggressive Schipperke.

Actually, I own a Schip, and I challenge anyone to find even a SINGLE report anywhere of a fatal Schipperke attack (fatal to non-rodents). And there have to have been some bad Schip owners along the way.

Hope you weren't looking for an argument . I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said.

 

[fairisfair]

however, I must also say that when I run at night, I am mighty glad that it is a pit that runs with me, and not a schipperke.

 

[fairisfair]

Actually, Cilfton chose 2209 cases, not a measly 100, and these cases were chosen based on 2 factors - they were reported in the press, and the press account identified the dog breed. Therefore, we have a decent size sample for analysis and must determine if the sampling method skewed the results.

Dog bites are "news" in the sense that news sells newspapers. Therefore, the likelihood that attack would be reported would be influenced by the seriousness of the attack and whether a child or otherwise innocent individual was involved. Another factor would be that "rampaging pit bulls" is a hot button issue in the media and any pit bull attack would likely interest more readers.

I personlly think that a severe and unprovoked attack would be more likey to cause the incident to be reported than the fact that the animal was a pit bull. But that last part is just my opinion.

What is telling is that statistics about human fatalities have shown that 66% relate to pit bull type breeds. Human fatalities are definitely newsworthy and the decision to report in th enewspaper or not wouldn't be skewed by any reporter bias against pit bulls.

I have no objection to the statistic that when pit bulls attack their attacks are more likely to be fatal than other dogs.

My objection is to the idea that they are an uncontrollable, agressive breed.

 

[Cvillecpm]

Pit bulls by their various "breed" names are on the "dangerous breeds" list of insurance underwriters.

Many cities have outlawed them in rental properties including LA.

OP's fear may well be justified and she needs to be able to feel safe in her home for herself and her family.

 

[xylene]

I have no objection to the statistic that when pit bulls attack their attacks are more likely to be fatal than other dogs.

This is the only criteria for me to be convinced that police should kill, on sight, any loose pit bull / dangerous type dog that has resisted passive human control.

Here's what I mean in two scenarios.

Scenario 1
Officer. "Hey boy, cmere... do you have a tag... maybe you got out..."

Dog - "whimmper" and passively sits allowing officer to inspect tag.

Dog gets help to find owner.

Scenario 2
Officer "Hey boy... down,... sit.... not

Dog - growl. snarl. nip....

Dog is shot.

I just want our streets safe from stray dogs, and its not wrong to want dangerous dogs to be taken out first.

Lastly, the inherently greater danger in event of a bite / attack is exactly why breed specific laws on muzzles are abundantly justified.

I just don't believe in equal rights for dogs. Laws that demand rottweilers be muzzled don't have to apply to chihauhaus or even to labs...

 

[acmb05]

Actually, Cilfton chose 2209 cases, not a measly 100, and these cases were chosen based on 2 factors - they were reported in the press, and the press account identified the dog breed. Therefore, we have a decent size sample for analysis and must determine if the sampling method skewed the results.

The only problem with this is that most all press you see on dog attacks involve pit bulls. When other dogs attack it does not make the news like it does with a pit bull, why? Because pitbull attacks sell papers and are overly dramatized.

 

[Hot Topic]

I've read more than one article about a child that was killed by a pitbull or so maimed that they had to have multiple surgies and will be marked for the rest of their lives. I don't consider the articles about those attacks "overly dramatized."

When a pitbull or a rottweiler is coming at you, your first thought is probably not going to be, "Gee, they should have done a better job of socializing that animal."

 

[Hot Topic]

I've read more than one article about a child that was killed by a pitbull or so maimed that they will have to have multiple surgeries and will be marked for the rest of their lives. I don't consider the articles about those attacks "overly dramatized."

When a pitbull or a rottweiler is coming at you, your first thought is probably not going to be, "Gee, they should have done a better job of socializing that animal."