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

[SewingDeb]

You're welcome.

 

[Details]

Pit bulls are used for fighting because they are muscular and will not stop if they are hurt. You do realize people stand in the pit while the dogs fight and handle the dogs during the fight? Do you think they would do that if the dogs were likely to turn on them and rip them apart? Please read curlytone's post; it is well researched and fair.

That's part of what makes pit bulls so dangerous - when they focus on an enemy, they keep going until they kill it. If it's another pit bull, then we're safe. When it's a child or a person, they can't be stopped.

The stats are there - pit bulls kill.

 

[Details]

http://www.fataldogattacks.com/statistics.html
From THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001 *


Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%),
Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%),
German Shepherd Dogs (9%),
Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%),
Malamutes (4%),
Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%),
Chow Chows (3%),
Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).

I wonder how this relates to the percentage of each of these dog breeds in the dog population. Mixed breed is a huge category, to only have 16 percent of the attacks is really a good thing, but not as good as the Labs, who are also a huge population, but aren't even listed here. If Pitbulls are 21% of all dogs in America, then they're not killing out of proportion, but if they're 1%, they are a huge risk.

 

[curlytone]

But let's not blame the people "making all the money"??? It must be the dog. Do you think that they just buy a pit bull, treat it well, and it becomes a fighter? They train it to fight. Are they strong dogs? Yes. Should we condemn things based on their strength? Are you more likely do die by getting hit by a Semi than a car? Does that make the semi bad? To answer your question "why do they use pit bulls?" It's because they are strong and there are backyard breeders all over so they are cheap. Why would they spend thousands on another breed when there is easy and cheap access to pit bulls and you fully expect that the dog will die? If every pit bull were gone tomorrow, do you think that the dog-fighting people will pack up their winnings and say "well it was a good run for us" or do you think that another breed will enter the picture?

Let's also explore the dog-fighting concept. The trainers must interact with the dogs. What do you think happens to dogs that are aggressive with people? They are eliminated (or historically they were, in recent times SOME irresponsible owners value human aggression. I think we SHOULD pass a ban on owners like that and eliminate ANY dog of ANY breed that is aggressive with people). Pit bulls have been breed to be aggressive with other animals, especially dogs. By far and away the overwhelming majority of them love people.



My head is fully out of the sand, but again most of the responses are based on a news story here and there. To me, that is not a very trustworthy source of information. I suppose that you don't know that in the early 1900s pit bulls were one of the most common family dogs. Helen Keller owned one, president Roosevelt owned one, Petey on the Little Rascals was one, and they represented our country on WWI and WWII posters. It seems to me that much of the public responds only to sensationalized media stories. I see no evidence of any other post with any research at all. Dateline doesn't count. I think you should reevaluate who has their head in the sand.



BTW, aggression does not necessarily have anything to do with inbreeding. The reason that inbreeding is bad (other than the obvious part about copulating with relatives) is that it is more likely for rare, recessive genes to be paired and therefore expressed. If a family has a really rare genetic disorder that is recessive, the chances of meeting and reproducing with someone else that has the same gene is very remote. However, if they reproduce within the family, the chance that the two recessive genes are paired (and therefore the gene that is expressed) is very likely. So the only way that this leads to aggression is if there is a recessive gene for viciousness. To my knowledge no one has researched that.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

From the link:

The study covers 431 documented human fatalities from a dog attack.

Victim Profile
79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
12% of the victims were the elderly, aged 65 - 94
9% of the victims were 13 - 64 years old

FROM CNN.Com

CNN) -- Dogs are the preferred pet for millions of Americans, valued for their loyalty, companionship and protection. But sometimes, that faithful friend can turn into a foe. Health officials say dogs bite or attack more than 4.5 million people each year, killing an average of 20 people.

Young children are often the most vulnerable to these attacks.

"Children are small people, they are closer to dog size. So the dog often views them as playmates, you know, rather than someone as leader," said Patricia McDonnell of Comprehensive Pet Therapy.

In dog society there is a distinct rank order, and dogs sometime see a young child as someone they can push around or perhaps discipline by biting or nipping, according to McDonnell.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/02/25/dog.bite/

 

[Details]

Semi drivers do have to undergo extra training - there's a different license. And dog fighting rings aren't so much the problem as the people who get a pit bull because it's known as a mean dog, or have one as a family pet, well treated, well raised, but it turns - and they do turn. All dogs can, but when pit bulls turn, they kill.

Dog fighting rings aren't the problem, it is in the genes of the pit bull, bred there over centuries - it doesn't go away just because a nice family adopts the dog, nor does it get strengthened immediately because they are in a dog fighting ring.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Curlytone, let's say you're right about everything you posted. You most likely are. The fact of the matter is that these dogs, for the most part, are being breed and raised in basements and backyards- not so that they can be brought into loving homes to become part of the family. They're raised to fight. So, instead of making sure some of these dogs are never born in the first place, and save them all of the torture of being ripped to part in someone's backyard for "fun" and "profit," what would you suggest?

You suggest that if this breed were ended, these criminals would just pick up on another breed to fight? What breed, besides a pitt, is going to fight to the death?

 

[Jules]

You suggest that if this breed were ended, these criminals would just pick up on another breed to fight? What breed, besides a pitt, is going to fight to the death?

Jeana, unfortunately, there are many that would. Chow and Rottweiler come to mind immediately and I have no doubt there could be others - if they are trained that way. Perhaps dobermans, german shepherds.

 

[curlytone]

I wonder how this relates to the percentage of each of these dog breeds in the dog population. Mixed breed is a huge category, to only have 16 percent of the attacks is really a good thing, but not as good as the Labs, who are also a huge population, but aren't even listed here. If Pitbulls are 21% of all dogs in America, then they're not killing out of proportion, but if they're 1%, they are a huge risk.

Fair enough, but what does that tell you:

1) it could be the breed
2) it could be the type of people who are more likely to own the breed and the training that they give it
3) it could be that pit bull is an umbrella term that categorizes more than one ACK, ADBA, etc. recognized breed and any cross breed pitbull look-alike (my guess is that the majority of pit bulls have no papers).

I have read reports that estimate that in Chicago, every night, there are 3,000 dog fights. Even if each instance only has two dogs, that is 6,000 dogs trained to fight and be aggressive. I would guess that most are pit bulls. Would I trust these fighting dogs? Problably not, but I think that it is the criminals training them that are the problem, not the breed.

Also think about someone who sets out with the goal of getting an intimidating dog. Will they pick a lab, collie, retriever? No, they will get a pit bull or a rottweiler. The wanted and intimidating dog so they will likely train it to be aggressive so that it "walks the walk" so to speak. It is not suprising to me that statistics show a disproportionate number of deaths from pit bulls and rottweilers, but consider the facts that lead up to them. If labs struck fear into most of the public that saw them, than they would be the dogs that get trained by irresponsible people to be mean. Again, it is the people not the breed.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Jeana, unfortunately, there are many that would. Chow and Rottweiler come to mind immediately and I have no doubt there could be others - if they are trained that way. Perhaps dobermans, german shepherds.

Jules, I think some of them would and some of them wouldn't. Its definately not a guaranteed thing as it is with a pitt. I took my GSD to classes in protection for months and months and months and I'm telling you, there's no guaranty that the dog would fight someone to the death. I'm thinking that he wouldn't.

 

[Jules]

Jules, I think some of them would and some of them wouldn't. Its definately not a guaranteed thing as it is with a pitt. I took my GSD to classes in protection for months and months and months and I'm telling you, there's no guaranty that the dog would fight someone to the death. I'm thinking that he wouldn't.

Yep, that's why I said "if trained that way." I'm not saying all of them - but if they are born into the "fighting" atmosphere that pitts are - I don't know that they'd be able to walk away from a fight.

 

[aussiegran]

http://www.fataldogattacks.com/statistics.html
From THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001 *


Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%),
Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%),
German Shepherd Dogs (9%),
Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%),
Malamutes (4%),
Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%),
Chow Chows (3%),
Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).

Thanks SewingDeb.


curlytone
(this follows a poster whose husband killed a neighbor’s dog (albeit an irresponsible owner and a vicious dog with a mind-numbing vertical jump) in an eye-for-an-eye exchange. Sounds like the definition of level-headedness to me. In that situation the tally is vicious dog, 1 dog killed; levelheaded adult, 1 dog killed. Also, so far, the only attacking seems to be non-pit bull owners attacking pit bull owners. Funny how the non-owners often act so much like the stereotype of the dogs that they hate

When my husband got rid of the dog it wasnt an eye for eye type thing it was because we had small grandkids and other neighbours had small dogs at risk.at least you agree that he was level headed here.I still cannot understand why anyone would want this breed of dog as a pet knowing they are recognised as a risk breed when there are so many gentle breeds out there .My vet told me he has treated
Quote (a huge number of animals attacked by THIS breed compared to others )and thinks they should be banned. I as a non owner of a pitbull will always shake my head at anyone with a family who owns one and I dont consider myself in any way like a pitbull.:furious: .

 

[curlytone]

Curlytone, let's say you're right about everything you posted. You most likely are. The fact of the matter is that these dogs, for the most part, are being breed and raised in basements and backyards- not so that they can be brought into loving homes to become part of the family. They're raised to fight. So, instead of making sure some of these dogs are never born in the first place, and save them all of the torture of being ripped to part in someone's backyard for "fun" and "profit," what would you suggest?

You suggest that if this breed were ended, these criminals would just pick up on another breed to fight? What breed, besides a pitt, is going to fight to the death?

I would suggest that we devote more resources to breakup dogfights and arrest criminals who are involved with them. I think dog owners should be held more accountable for the behavior of their dogs.

I don't really want to offer suggstions for dog fighters but I would suspect that any large dog would fit the bill: Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherd Dogs, Akitas, Chows, Dogo Argentino, Cane Presario, Cane Corso, etc. Again, it takes people to train them to be mean. I have seen nice family labs get into a fight, and without human intervention from responsible owners, they sure looked like could kill eachother.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Yep, that's why I said "if trained that way." I'm not saying all of them - but if they are born into the "fighting" atmosphere that pitts are - I don't know that they'd be able to walk away from a fight.

Its not just that they have to walk away from a fight Jules. Put a pitt bull in front of another dog and it WILL more times than not, attack that dog. Put another breed dog in front of another dog and its not the case.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I would suggest that we devote more resources to breakup dogfights and arrest criminals who are involved with them. I think dog owners should be held more accountable for the behavior of their dogs.

I don't really want to offer suggstions for dog fighters but I would suspect that any large dog would fit the bill: Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherd Dogs, Akitas, Chows, Dogo Argentino, Cane Presario, Cane Corso, etc. Again, it takes people to train them to be mean. I have seen nice family labs get into a fight, and without human intervention from responsible owners, they sure looked like could kill eachother.

What about all of the attacks mentioned in the link above? None of those 21% pitt bulls from that article were "trained" fighting dogs. They were pets. Your argument makes no sense to me Curly. I think you don't want to see what is so obvious. I've lived with trained police K-9s and there's no way any of them would attack another dog or person unprovoked the way pitts do.

 

[Jules]

Its not just that they have to walk away from a fight Jules. Put a pitt bull in front of another dog and it WILL more times than not, attack that dog. Put another breed dog in front of another dog and its not the case.

I agree with that.

 

[curlytone]

Thanks SewingDeb.


curlytone
(this follows a poster whose husband killed a neighbor’s dog (albeit an irresponsible owner and a vicious dog with a mind-numbing vertical jump) in an eye-for-an-eye exchange. Sounds like the definition of level-headedness to me. In that situation the tally is vicious dog, 1 dog killed; levelheaded adult, 1 dog killed. Also, so far, the only attacking seems to be non-pit bull owners attacking pit bull owners. Funny how the non-owners often act so much like the stereotype of the dogs that they hate

When my husband got rid of the dog it wasnt an eye for eye type thing it was because we had small grandkids and other neighbours had small dogs at risk.at least you agree that he was level headed here.I still cannot understand why anyone would want this breed of dog as a pet knowing they are recognised as a risk breed when there are so many gentle breeds out there .My vet told me he has treated
Quote (a huge number of animals attacked by THIS breed compared to others )and thinks they should be banned. I as a non owner of a pitbull will always shake my head at anyone with a family who owns one and I dont consider myself in any way like a pitbull.:furious: .

My vet loves pit bulls and acknowledges that they are more prone to animal aggressivness. I also feel that pit bull ownership requires more responsibility than other breeds. I know that my pit bull could have a propensity for animal aggression. She hasn't shown that, but I understand her breeds history, and it could be there. I also know that if my dog gets into a fight, regardless of which dog starts the fight, my dog will be blamed. That means that I can't be as cavilier with my dog as the owner of say a pug could, but I don't see why there should be a law banning my dog. And people can choose not to get one as you have, but if use "why would you want this, when there is this" as the measuring stick, I think most of the "wants" that people have could come into question. Also, lets look at the risk. Flamming pajamas (see my first post) kill more people annually than pit bulls.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

My vet loves pit bulls and acknowledges that they are more prone to animal aggressivness. I also feel that pit bull ownership requires more responsibility than other breeds. I know that my pit bull could have a propensity for animal aggression. She hasn't shown that, but I understand her breeds history, and it could be there. I also know that if my dog gets into a fight, regardless of which dog starts the fight, my dog will be blamed. That means that I can't be as cavilier with my dog as the owner of say a pug could, but I don't see why there should be a law banning my dog. And people can choose not to get one as you have, but if use "why would you want this, when there is this" as the measuring stick, I think most of the "wants" that people have could come into question. Also, lets look at the risk. Flamming pajamas (see my first post) kill more people annually than pit bulls.

Curly, did you take your dog in for basic obedience training or need to do anything else to satisfy a home ownwer's insurance company?

 

[Casshew]

Anyone who has or who has known a pitbull who was loving & sweet is just going to poo-pooh the arguments and statistics.

I hope for their sake they (or one of their children) does not become a statistic one day.

 

[Details]

I've known a loving and sweet pitbull - nice, wonderful dog - my big sister's family dog. Doesn't change the facts, doesn't change the genes, doesn't change the possibilities. They are more prone to be agressive. It's in the genes. When they snap, they go for the kill and people die. Even a good, loving, sweet, family pet pitbull can and does snap.

I also know a pedophile who seems to not be attacking and killing children. That doesn't change my point of view about the danger of pedophiles.