Marauding pit bulls attack six - 10 year old boy, Critical

[SadieMae]

This is an analogy, so bear with me.
If I gave you the following statistics (note these are not real numbers):

Number of deaths by car manufacturer:
Ford 5,000 61%
Toyota 2,000 25%
Nissan 1,000 12%
Kia 147 2%
Ferrari 3 <1%


Is it correct to say that Ford is the most dangerous car? No. It is correct to say that if you die in a car, you are statistically more likely to die in a Ford. Why might that be? Maybe it is simply because there are more Fords. Maybe it is because people who buy Fords are more reckless (note I said maybe). Maybe Fords are more likely to be stolen and therefore involved in more high speed chase type crashes. Maybe there is a group of people who buy them and intend to crash them (for a derby or something). The point is, simply saying that getting rid of Fords will reduce the number of car deaths by 61% is completely false and unsupported by statistics.

With any numbers, people need to use COMMON SENSE when interpreting them. Raw numbers again, don't tell me anything! I know more people drive Fords than Ferraris, so am I to believe I need to be driving a Ferrari to reduce my chances of dying in a car accident? OF COURSE NOT. What percent of those were deaths caused by manufacturing defects? Were the drivers involved drinking? If the fatal accidents were due to drinking, we have laws FORBIDDING it to reduce the likeyhood of drunk driving deaths. Without the drunk driving laws, there would be more fatalities from drunk drivers.

 

[Details]

Oops - that stat was not in there - faulty recollection. My second point stands - the dog that is responsible for the most deaths obviously will be the dog responsible for the most serious dog bites when they fail to cause death - and pit bulls don't always win - they're strong, but not that strong. Sounds like pit bull owner machismo talking if you want to say they would always kill if they wanted to kill.

 

[curlytone]

Excuse me!!! But the majority of news reports on these dogs that killed, they are described as a "family pet"

Even if all the news reports said that, lets say that 365 news reports per year said that, the number of news reports (if 365) covers 0.008% of reported dog attacks. Go back to my statistics lesson.

Since it's your opinion more idiots own the dogs, why would you oppose a ban then? Right or wrong it's to protect the public.

Beacuse the idiots are still there. They will buy a new dog. Once they all grow up, there will be some new breed that is public enemy number 1. Even as it stands today. Getting rid of all PB will reduce the number of deaths from 17 to 14.5 and the number of attacks from 4.5 million to probably something between 4 and 4.5 million. AND THAT ASSUMES THAT THE IDIOTS DO NOT BUY ANOTHER DOG. Why is it okay to live with those numbers?

 

[janeb]

From The Rottweiler Breed Standard:
An aggressive or belligerent attitude towards other dogs should not be faulted.

From The Border Terrier Breed Standard:
In the field he is hard as nails, "game as they come" and driving in attack

From The Doberman Standard:
Temperment
Energetic, watchful, determined, alert, fearless, loyal and obedient. The judge shall dismiss from the ring any shy or vicious Doberman.
Shyness: A dog shall be judged fundamentally shy if, refusing to stand for examination, it shrinks away from the judge; if it fears an approach from the rear; if it shies at sudden and unusual noises to a marked degree.
Viciousness: A dog that attacks or attempts to attack either the judge or its handler, is definitely vicious. An aggressive or belligerent attitude towards other dogs shall not be deemed viciousness.



Within just TEN minutes of researching breed standards on www.akc.org, I found THREE breed standards that CLEARLY stated dog aggression is NOT to be penalized. Did you try doing the same research before opening your mouth and inserting foot. YES, that is what I am saying and so is akc. NOT all breeds are bred to be pack dogs, like the more dominant, self-confident breeds. People get the illusion of some uncontrollable dog at the end of a leash attempting to eat another dog ten feet away. IF the dog was PROPERLY trained and accompanied by a RESPONSIBLE dog owner, a stranger in the park wouldn't notice if the dog was dog aggressive or not until another dog motioned over into its face where it didn't belong in the first place. This a breed as well as many other breeds who don't submit or back down to confrontation from another dog, plain and simple. A good responsible bully breed owner will not allow their dog to run up to another dogs face. Infact, I wouldn't allow it even if my dog wasn't dog aggressive withOUT asking the owner first. Not ALL dogs get along, understand?? That's why dog parks are not good ideas for dogs who won't get along with each & every dog it sees. It's also why people need to practice responsible dog ownership. Here's a PERFECT case of idiotism of a people's court case. Plantiff sues defendant for vet bill damages to his toy poodle. Defendant's story is he was walking his siberian husky dog down the street with a LEASH ON when an UNLEASHED & UNATTENDED toy poddle ran up to the siberian husky's face. The husky bit the toy poodle and the owner had to take the toy poodle to the vet. Well, who is the responsible one here? Who's fault was it the dog got bit??? If that toy poodle was leashed or confined, maybe the husky wouldn't have bit him? Then the owner has the audacity to sue some guy who was walking his dog on leash in public terrority!!! The judge found the case to be so ludicrous, she had a thing to two to say to the owner of the toy poddle for being so irresponsible. Its is ALL about being a responsible dog owner. You don't have to choose a dominant self-confident breed, there different types of breed temperments to choose from but don't ever tell me its not ok to own a dog aggressive dog when I have FULL control of him and I am being the responsible dog owner.

As for experts claiming some dogs can't differientate between a child and a dog, my answer is and will always be, put the dog down, humanely ofcourse. If its not smart enough to know the difference, it doesn't have a place in society. I have had astranged children from 2yr olds to 10yrs approach my dogs on my property and they have always known the difference, otherwise they get a one way trip to the vet. Breeds of dogs all have one thing in common, they were ALL bred to be mans best friend. Best I can say, becareful who you pick and choose to buy a dog from, genetics plays a huge role in how well a dog is genetically bred and quality breeding is MOST important.

 

[Details]

With any numbers, people need to use COMMON SENSE when interpreting them. Raw numbers again, don't tell me anything! What percent of those were deaths caused by manufacturing defects? Were the drivers involved drinking? If the fatal accidents were due to drinking, we have laws FORBIDDING it to reduce the likeyhood of drunk driving deaths. Without the drunk driving laws, there would be more fatalities from drunk drivers.

What is a bit ridiculous here is that this is not the Ford case. This is the Hummer case. We are not talking about a very common dog breed causing a fair portion of all dog bites and deaths, we are talking about a not that common dog breed doing that.

In the case with Ford - it'd be easy for them to have the most accidents, but actually be the safest car. That's not the case with pitbulls - 1 in 5 deaths are caused by them. But they are not anywhere near 1 in 5 dogs - maybe 1 in 20 dogs (at the very most) are pitbulls. So, that means a pitbull has at the least a 400% greater chance of killing someone than the average dog.

 

[forthekids]

And airline travel significantly benefits society - it's a necessity, a very positive thing that cannot be provided in any way.

Benefit or not...that really doesn't matter. I believe the whole point of that analogy has ONLY TO DO WITH THE MEDIA. As the public we tend to hear only about bad things because they create much more contraversy...this is similar to what we see here in websleuths. Not as many posts on the good stories, but the horrible stories create much more to talk about. This is why we often seem much more on the side of bad than good, we just need be sure and become educated and informed ourselves instead of just staight out believing everything we read. I think that this theme has come out in other postings of mine and definately by other people. Just because there are X number of pit bull attacks reported in the media doesn't mean that is an accurate portrayal of the greater pit bull population. And as far as the media goes, this is similar to airplanes....just because we only hear about crashes on the news and in news articles, that doesn't mean that flying is unsafe.

Is that clear now?

 

[Details]

Even if all the news reports said that, lets say that 365 news reports per year said that, the number of news reports (if 365) covers 0.008% of reported dog attacks. Go back to my statistics lesson.

Beacuse the idiots are still there. They will buy a new dog. Once they all grow up, there will be some new breed that is public enemy number 1. Even as it stands today. Getting rid of all PB will reduce the number of deaths from 17 to 14.5 and the number of attacks from 4.5 million to probably something between 4 and 4.5 million. AND THAT ASSUMES THAT THE IDIOTS DO NOT BUY ANOTHER DOG. Why is it okay to live with those numbers?

Getting rid of all pitbulls will cut down 20% of the deaths from a dog, makes sense it would cut down 20% of all serious dog bites - I believe that's set at 44,000? So, 11,000 mostly children would not be seriously bitten by a pit bull.

Minor dog bites - not good, but not really serious. It's the ones who rip off the skull, cause huge facial injuries, maybe take out an eye or an ear - and usually a child that are worth worrying about. A dog bites your ankle through blue jeans, breaks the skin a little - that's not what we're worried about. If that's all a pit bull did, I wouldn't worry about them.

 

[Details]

Benefit or not...that really doesn't matter. I believe the whole point of that analogy has ONLY TO DO WITH THE MEDIA. As the public we tend to hear only about bad things because they create much more contraversy...this is similar to what we see here in websleuths. Not as many posts on the good stories, but the horrible stories create much more to talk about. This is why we often seem much more on the side of bad than good, we just need be sure and become educated and informed ourselves instead of just staight out believing everything we read. I think that this theme has come out in other postings of mine and definately by other people. Just because there are X number of pit bull attacks reported in the media doesn't mean that is an accurate portrayal of the greater pit bull population. And as far as the media goes, this is similar to airplanes....just because we only hear about crashes on the news and in news articles, that doesn't mean that flying is unsafe.

Is that clear now?

It seemed to me the analogy he was trying to make went further than just the media. However, going for just from the media side - no, individual reports don't make a problem. The statistics make the problem. And the media reports are real - you can't say that airplanes never crash with that analogy, only that they may not be that common statistically, that they're overreported.

However, we've got the statistics. 1 in 5 - 21% - on the low end (aussiegran's data sources has a higher percentage). If one small airline was responsible for 21% of all crashes, they'd probably try to blame the media for focusing on their crashes too. But I sure wouldn't fly with them. Would you?

 

[curlytone]

With any numbers, people need to use COMMON SENSE when interpreting them. Raw numbers again, don't tell me anything! I know more people drive Fords than Ferraris, so am I to believe I need to be driving a Ferrari to reduce my chances of dying in a car accident? OF COURSE NOT. What percent of those were deaths caused by manufacturing defects? Were the drivers involved drinking? If the fatal accidents were due to drinking, we have laws FORBIDDING it to reduce the likeyhood of drunk driving deaths. Without the drunk driving laws, there would be more fatalities from drunk drivers.

Again the point wasn't the cars. The point is that people don't get all heated when lookin at car stats, so I was trying to explain what the dog death stats acctually tell us, by using something other than dogs.

However, you want to talk cars, so: It is irresponsible behavior on the part of the opperator of the car. The law doesn't blame the car, it blames the person who is in control. It is not compeletly the same, but you should be able to control your dog. If we had laws that did that for people who are irresponsible with their dog (any dog), the number of deaths would go down, the number of attacks would go down and it would have a more dramatic impact than banning any breed would. The fact is most bites could have been prevented. Step one is cracking down on offenders. In my state, someone was attacked by PBs and it made all the papers. In the last paragraph, they said that it was like the 3 offense involving this owner and dogs. That is unacceptable. Also, enforcing leash laws for all dogs will do more good. Effective dog safety training programs in schools will help considerably. "Vicious dog" dog laws would be light years more effective than an all out ban. As you propose, all PBs good and bad would be gone, but all of the mean dogs of other breeds would be safe from the law. Under a vicious dog law, any dog of any breed that is found to be vicious would be killed. If that means that 20% of the pit bulls are found to be vicious, 2% of labs, 5% of great danes, whatever breed, so be it. It would be so much more effective than a breed ban.

 

[curlytone]

However, we've got the statistics. 1 in 5 - 21% - on the low end (aussiegran's data sources has a higher percentage). If one small airline was responsible for 21% of all crashes, they'd probably try to blame the media for focusing on their crashes too. But I sure wouldn't fly with them. Would you?

My analogy was to point out that a media only approach is dramatically skewed towards negative, whether we are talking pit bull, planes, horse shoes or hand granades, they only tell you that bad stories.

Yes, but if it were a big airline, what would that say? And even if it were a small airline, does that mean that it is their planes fault? No, they might need new pilots, or more widely enforced training policies, or new aviation rules for small airlines, etc.

 

[Details]

As for experts claiming some dogs can't differientate between a child and a dog, my answer is and will always be, put the dog down, humanely ofcourse. If its not smart enough to know the difference, it doesn't have a place in society. I have had astranged children from 2yr olds to 10yrs approach my dogs on my property and they have always known the difference, otherwise they get a one way trip to the vet. Breeds of dogs all have one thing in common, they were ALL bred to be mans best friend. Best I can say, becareful who you pick and choose to buy a dog from, genetics plays a huge role in how well a dog is genetically bred and quality breeding is MOST important.

You don't know if the dog is thinking that (and from what I understand - most dogs think that - that's what I'm reading) until they attack. Then it's too late.

Responsible dog owners - there's the problem. If you think having these agressive breeds is OK, then those dog owners need to be licensed and trained because right now anyone can go buy a furry weapon and fail to secure it. Without that happening, these dogs need to be banned. Because irresponsible dog owners will always exist. And people who think they are responsible but find out later they were not responsible enough. The majority of these bites and deaths are the family pet, trusted and a good dog for years and years suddenly snapping and attacking.

 

[curlytone]

aussiegran's data sources has a higher percentage

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

Notice that these stats pick and choose what time frames they want to look at. If you want to do that, why not just pick a one week period when there was only one dog fatality, caused by a pit bull. That way you could say 100% came from pit bulls.

 

[Amraann]

I have a golden as well (2 actually)

Definately considered a large breed.
I would LOVE to see the statistics of killer golden retriever attacks.

The problem with pitbulls is not the size (although I have seen some very stalky and STRONG!)
Its when they attack as stated before, unlike most breeds, they do it to kill.

That is what sets them apart. You can potentially stop another breed even if large. Pitbulls are like alligators.

Personally and I have posted this before, I think if you want a pet akin to wild animal and potentially deadly then you should have liscences and the areas to contain it just like you would need if you owned a gator or lion.
And if you don't then you get fined for it.
Also if you own a wild pet you must have so many hours to show you can properly care for it before your liscenced. The cages must be approved by Fish and game etc.

I think this is a fessable solution. You want to own a wild dangerous animal then you pay the fees and do what needs to be done.

I persoanlly would not ever own one and would quickly destroy one loose near my home. I have a neighbor who has a beautiful pitbull.
Built like an ox but very sweet even to other animals.
Which is rare.
She knows my take on this. Her dog is adorable but even sweet I better never catch it loose in my yard.
And even though my goldens are big babies they never leave my yard unless with me on a leash.

 

[SadieMae]

What is a bit ridiculous here is that this is not the Ford case. This is the Hummer case. We are not talking about a very common dog breed causing a fair portion of all dog bites and deaths, we are talking about a not that common dog breed doing that.

In the case with Ford - it'd be easy for them to have the most accidents, but actually be the safest car. That's not the case with pitbulls - 1 in 5 deaths are caused by them. But they are not anywhere near 1 in 5 dogs - maybe 1 in 20 dogs (at the very most) are pitbulls. So, that means a pitbull has at the least a 400% greater chance of killing someone than the average dog.

My point exactly Details. There are a lot more Labs & Goldens owned by familiies because they are considered good family dogs and because of their "reputation" I would own those breeds.

 

[Details]

My analogy was to point out that a media only approach is dramatically skewed towards negative, whether we are talking pit bull, planes, horse shoes or hand granades, they only tell you that bad stories.

Yes, but if it were a big airline, what would that say? And even if it were a small airline, does that mean that it is their planes fault? No, they might need new pilots, or more widely enforced training policies, or new aviation rules for small airlines, etc.

It's not a big airline, it's a small airline. Pit bulls - not uncommon, but nowhere near, not even close to 1 in 5 dogs. And whether it's the pilots or the planes, unless there's a way to ensure that the bad pilots never get near a plane (and funny how all the bad pilots get the same type of plane... someone might take a look and figure out that it's not that the pilots of this type of plane are all bad, but that the plane itself is the problem), might as well ban the planes.

It's a plane - which even pilots who love it admit is a bit tempermental to fly; which even apparently good pilots who say it's a good plane and they love it can suddenly find themselves crashing in. That means it is the plane, not that all bad pilots prefer one particular plane.

And every breed standard, experts, vets, pit bull advocates - everyone admits they're an agressive breed. It's supposed to be only towards other dogs (not a good thing in itself I think), but there are little switches in doggie brains where they tend to think of people as just other dogs - especially children. So that agression is a problem.


The media isn't the problem - the statistics are there and they too show a huge problem. This is not a media created problem. It is real.

 

[curlytone]

Getting rid of all pitbulls will cut down 20% of the deaths from a dog, makes sense it would cut down 20% of all serious dog bites - I believe that's set at 44,000? So, 11,000 mostly children would not be seriously bitten by a pit bull.

So if you are wrong and it is usually the owner who is at fault and all the owners go get new dogs, what do you think will happen?

Minor dog bites - not good, but not really serious. It's the ones who rip off the skull, cause huge facial injuries, maybe take out an eye or an ear - and usually a child that are worth worrying about. A dog bites your ankle through blue jeans, breaks the skin a little - that's not what we're worried about. If that's all a pit bull did, I wouldn't worry about them.

The thing is that these types of attacks are extremely rare and when it does happen, and a pit bull does it, the media is going to make sure that we hear about it. Also, like I said, if you don't fix the source of the problem, no amount of fixing downstream from the source is going to solve the problem.

 

[Details]

However, you want to talk cars, so: It is irresponsible behavior on the part of the opperator of the car. The law doesn't blame the car, it blames the person who is in control.

It depends on how dangerous the car is. Remember the Ford problem with exploding gas tanks? The operator of the car was careless - they got themselves into a little accident - didn't take much. Then the gas tank exploded. Operator error right? If they hadn't gotten in the accident, the gas tank wouldn't have exploded.

Nope. It's the car's fault. The car is overly dangerous, overly unforgiving of a minor error (or no error if you were rear-ended).

 

[SadieMae]

Maybe I'm incorrect, but I don't see a pit as a "large" breed. Compared to a dobby, rottweiler, GSD or even a lab, they're relatively small, which, from what I hear, is why they go directly for the throat of anything they're trying to kill.

I was watching Animal Planet Channel the other night and one of the "Animal Cops Michigan," episodes featured pit bulls. EVEN THE SPCA said it has to euthanize more pit bulls than any other breed of dog because it cannot pass an aggression test. In New York, the SPCA will NOT ADOPT out a pit bull. All of them are put to sleep when they're recovered by the SPCA. If there wasn't something to the "hype" as some people call it, why would an agency whose sole purpose is to protect animals, destroy this breed of dog?

Jeana, I posted the fact also that the SPCA and many shelters will put the Pit bull type down because they are unadoptable. Why can't Curly see that an organization that's all about saving dogs, destroy them and won't even try to adopt them out? What more needs to be said. They ARE a dangerous dog and people who's job is save them don't want them around. The same happens at our animal shelter here, even the no kill shelter will not accept pit bulls.

 

[Details]

So if you are wrong and it is usually the owner who is at fault and all the owners go get new dogs, what do you think will happen?


The thing is that these types of attacks are extremely rare and when it does happen, and a pit bull does it, the media is going to make sure that we hear about it. Also, like I said, if you don't fix the source of the problem, no amount of fixing downstream from the source is going to solve the problem.

Rare? 44,000 every year. That's not rare enough for me to forget it.

If the owner was the fault, we'd be seeing these attacks spread out over all large dog breeds - we'd have the golden retrievers, black labs, great danes, etc. doing as much damage as the pit bulls and rotweilers. It's not all the owner - as in the car analogy above, it's a dangerous dog. And there are too many reports of a good family dog, well trained, well treated, suddenly turning on a child to decide that every single one of those people is lying, all of their friends and family who say it was a good dog is lying. Everything pretty much says that a dog, any dog, can turn - but some dogs it's more common, and when they turn, they do more damage than others.

 

[Amraann]

Pefect point Details!~


As a responsible pet owner many of us have found our dogs loose.
Maybe they slipped the lead or dug under the fence or jumped it.

This type of error is usually ok and it just happens. But when it happens with a potential time bomb well that is a different story.
I bet not all the Fords exploded either. SO did their owners have less error when they got into an accident?