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

[Jeana (DP)]

 

[tuppence]

:laugh:

(Disclaimer: My cats have never killed anyone)

 

[sandraladeda]

I hope that you are teaching them to avoid all large dogs, not just pit bulls, that they don't know. 85.3% of the dog realated deaths every year are the result of breeds other than pit bulls. It would also be wise to teach them how to properly interact with any dog. More tips for safety:
http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/dog_care/stay_dog_bite_free/avoiding_dog_bites.html

I do. I have a healthy respect for all strange dogs. However, I am especially cautious about Pit Bulls, Dobermans, Rotties, and German Shepherds. I have taught my kids how to approach all dogs they do not know, large or small. When we visit the off-leash park, and I spot a pit bull, that is the end of our walk. We go home. It stops being fun when I have 3 kids and my dog to worry about.

I have alot of experience with dogs, and I think I do a pretty good job of reading their body language. I am careful of any dog whose body language indicates to me that I have something to worry about. I am much more confident in my ability to subdue a dachshund that is out of control than a pit bull. I would far rather survive a golden retriever attack than a pit bull attack.

imho

 

[aussiegran]

The breeds most likely to kill http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Top

As stated above, there are two problems that have been reported as though there is only a single problem, namely there are canine homicides (i.e., dog bite related human fatalities) and the dog bite epidemic. The dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"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." ([/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.) [/font]





​

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.)[/font]





[font=Arial,Helvetica]Owners of such dogs should be aware that if their dogs attack a person, the attacks may be scrutinized by law enforcement. The reason is that irresponsible behavior with or toward a dog whose breed is known to bite has caused a rising and unacceptable injury and death toll, which authorities are determined to stem.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]"Irresponsible behavior" is defined differently from place to place. In California, for example, it can be a felony for a person to possess a dog trained to fight, attack or kill that, because of the owner's lack of ordinary care, bites two people or seriously injures one person. (See Felony prosecution of attack dog owners.)[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]In different parts of the United States at the current time, there are a number of parents who are on trial for manslaughter because their dogs have killed their children. In these cases, the prosecutors have taken the position that the parents behaved irresponsibly because they left their children in the company of dogs most likely to bite.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]There is an 8 out of 10 chance that a biting dog is male. (Humane Society of the United States.) [/font]





[font=Arial,Helvetica]Although pit bull mixes and Rottweilers are most likely to kill and seriously maim, fatal attacks since 1975 have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]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.)[/font]​

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Curlytone .I think your dog is lucky to have you. I have done as you asked and still come up with bad statistics where ever there are significant numbers of this breed .CHILDREN ARE MOST OFTEN THE TARGET.I would ban rottweillers too if given the chance too .we point the finger at a parent puting their child at risk in other situations .the majority of biting dogs 77% belongs to the family .
I wonder what percentage didnt keep their dog secured because they didnt believe they would attack one of their own. I feel terrible after reading these statistics .who would believe a pomeranian could kill a baby .I have researched and cant find any more deaths recorded for pomeranians .it just shows how any dog can turn .But percentages speak for them selves regarding pitbulls and rottweilers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Children are the most frequent targets http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Top
Studies of dog bite injuries have reported that:

• [font=Arial,Helvetica]The median age of patients bitten was 15 years, with children, especially boys aged 5 to 9 years, having the highest incidence rate[/font]
• [font=Arial,Helvetica]The odds that a bite victim will be a child are 3.2 to 1. (CDC.)[/font]
• [font=Arial,Helvetica]Children seen in emergency departments were more likely than older persons to be bitten on the face, neck, and head. 77% of injuries to children under 10 years old are facial.[/font]
• [font=Arial,Helvetica]Severe injuries occur almost exclusively in children less than 10 years of age.[/font]
• [font=Arial,Helvetica]The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place. [/font]
• [font=Arial,Helvetica]The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend. [/font]
• [font=Arial,Helvetica]When a child less than 4 years old is the victim, the family dog was the attacker half the time (47%), and the attack almost always happened in the family home (90%). [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Dog bites rank second among other common causes of emergency-room injuries (table derived from [font=Arial,Helvetica]Weiss HB, Friedman DI, Coben JH. "Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emergency departments," [/font]supra, p. 53):[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Cause of injury [/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]Emergency room incidents annually[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]Baseball/softball [/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]404,364[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]Dog bites[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]333,687[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]Playground accidents [/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]268,810[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]All-terrain vehicles, mopeds, etc.[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]125,136[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]Volleyball[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]97,523[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]Inline skating [/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]75,994[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]Horseback riding[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]71,162[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]Baby walkers[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]28,000[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]Skateboards[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]25,486[/font]
The face is the most frequent target
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#TopStudies also have shown that:

• [font=Arial,Helvetica]Dog bites result in approximately 44,000 facial injuries in US hospitals each year. This represents between 0.5% and 1.5% of all emergency room visits[/font]
• [font=Arial,Helvetica]The face is the most frequent target (77% of all injures). Mail carriers are an exception where 97% involve the lower extremities.[/font]
• [font=Arial,Helvetica]The central target area for the face includes the lips, nose, and cheeks[/font]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I added this below from the same article to be fair to your argument .I dont know about anyone else but if it stops one death its worth doing.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

• 
  [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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[/font]

 

[Casshew]

Curly ~ airline disasters are accidents, a Pitbull attacking a child is not an accident, it is intentional - the animal is deliberately trying to kill.

 

[sandraladeda]

Great post aussiegran, thanks.

 

[Casshew]

Great post aussiegran, thanks.

Yes, I just saw that.... great info aussie.

 

[curlytone]

Curly ~ airline disasters are accidents, a Pitbull attacking a child is not an accident, it is intentional - the animal is deliberately trying to kill.

Do you understand the point of an analogy? The point is not the airplanes. Fill in the blank with anything. The point is that reading only media articles gives you a skewed view of the world, because tradgedy, blood, and carnage sell papers. Those are the stories you hear. You don't hear about the millions of good pit bulls. You don't even hear about a fraction of the dog attacks. There are 4.5 million reported dog bites. How many news articles have you provided on this site? Even if it were 500 per year, that covers 0.01% of the bites. Since you are grabbing articles from other years it is even a smaller percentage.

If you can't understand an analogy, I will still use your above comment to further a different point. People call them accidents, but they also investigate the crashes and find the cause. Cause number 1 is pilot error. Do they just ban planes because that is what ultimatley crashed the people into the ground? No they train the pilot more. BTW, your lifetime odds of being killed by a pit bull are 1 in 1,489,996. Your lifetime odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 5,704. Again, my original point has nothing to do with planes per se, it is to point out that using the media and stories for your only source of information is, WITHOUT ANY QUESTION, going to give you an inaccurate and skewed view of things.

 

[Details]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Dog bites result in approximately 44,000 facial injuries in US hospitals each year. This represents between 0.5% and 1.5% of all emergency room visits[/font]

As I posted before - the number of fatalities aren't the only thing - the number of horrible injuries is where the problem is. Is 44 thousand mostly children mauled enough reason to be concerned about dog bites? :banghead: And about the dogs that inflict most of them?

If all pit bull (and other aggressive large dog) owners were responsible like kgeaux, this probably wouldn't be a problem. But most owners don't take their dogs to have an agression test (and I bet most of them (Curly, have you done this?) wouldn't give up their dog if it failed the test), most owners don't muzzle their dogs, most owners don't spend much time understanding dog training and psychology.

I'll take a compromise where only owners who go through and do exactly what kgeaux did, only the dogs who pass agressiveness training are allowed - and any bite from that dog where it is off of it's own property not wearing a muzzle results in strong criminal charges against the owner. Anyone owning a dog who can and frequently does cause that kind of damage should have to go through owner licensing.

And this should apply to all dog breeds with a high statistically significant number of attacks - serious bites as well as fatalities. I refer mostly to pit bulls because they are most of the problem. Rotwiellers are nearly as bad. Those two breeds cause a horroriffic number of serious injuries and deaths.

 

[Casshew]

Do you understand the point of an analogy? The point is not the airplanes. Fill in the blank with anything.

Analogy: Analogy is a comparison of an unfamiliar object or idea to a familiar one in an attempt to explain or illuminate the unfamiliar.

I understand what an analogy is, but the airplane one was not a good one in this case.

Statistics are tricky and the numbers can be cooked to be misleading.

For instance if I told you 100% of those I have spoken to hate Pitbulls - that is quite a statement. But maybe I only spoke to 2 people and I am leaving that information out.

I have already told you that Pitts are banned where I live. Years of debate raged before this and we still won. There is no statistic, story, study, summary you can present to change that. These animals are killers, they don't belong in family communities. We want to be safe.

 

[Details]

Curly ~ airline disasters are accidents, a Pitbull attacking a child is not an accident, it is intentional - the animal is deliberately trying to kill.

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

 

[curlytone]

Is 44 thousand mostly children mauled enough reason to be concerned about dog bites? :banghead: And about the dogs that inflict most of them?

It is reason enough, and I am concerned about dog bites. But we need to come up with an effective solution. If you ban breeds, but it doesn't solve the problem, what have you accomplished? Look at the example above about England.

This question "And about the dogs that inflict most of them?" I assume that you are implying pit bulls. Correct me if that is not what you were implying. Making a huge assumption like that is NOT suppored by any statistics.

What you need to keep in mind about the statistics that we have looked at is that they say, IF you die from a dog bite, 21% of the time it will be from a pit bull. The first thought is "pit bulls are therefore more dangerous". What you need to keep in mind is that these statistics do not take into account the popularity of the breed. From the Humane Society:

"It is imperative that the dog population in the community be understood. To simply pull numbers of attacks does not give an accurate representation of a breed necessarily. For example, by reviewing a study that states there have been five attacks by golden retrievers in a community and 10 attacks by pit bulls in that same community it would appear that pit bulls are more dangerous. However, if you look at the dog populations in that community and learn that there are 50 golden retrievers present and 500 pit bulls, then the pit bulls are actually the safer breed statistically."

 

[curlytone]

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

Again, you are missing the point. It is not airline travel. I used that because we all know that it is a safe way to travel, but if you only read newspaper headline stories you wouldn't think that it is safe because they only report crashes.

 

[curlytone]

Analogy: Analogy is a comparison of an unfamiliar object or idea to a familiar one in an attempt to explain or illuminate the unfamiliar.

I understand what an analogy is, but the airplane one was not a good one in this case.

Statistics are tricky and the numbers can be cooked to be misleading.

For instance if I told you 100% of those I have spoken to hate Pitbulls - that is quite a statement. But maybe I only spoke to 2 people and I am leaving that information out.

I have already told you that Pitts are banned where I live. Years of debate raged before this and we still won. There is no statistic, story, study, summary you can present to change that. These animals are killers, they don't belong in family communities. We want to be safe.

Clearly you have no training in statistics. In order for statistics to be useful, they need to come from a random population. That random population needs to be representative of the entire population to which you want to apply the results. The number of samples needs to be large enough to satisfy the statistical method that you choose. As the number of samples goes up, your statistical confidence in the results go up. Trying to use 10, 100, 1000 examples of something don't mean anything statistically if they don't apply to the whole population or if that is not sufficient quantities for the population. For example, if you went to the mental ward in a hospital and asked everyone if they were Schizophrenic, and you found that 35% of people were, it would not be valid to apply that to general population of the country in question (the population is not random, the numbers are not high enough, and they don't represent the general population). Same goes for news stories. The samples (incedents) are not random (the are picked by the editor), they are not in statistically significant quantity, and they do not represent the general population. When talking about news, this last statment applies to airplanes, pit bulls, and anything else you hear on the news, so my analogy is perfectly valid for the point that I was making.

I think that you need to think about what you will do if the ban in your county doesn't solve the problem that it is trying to. I have never said that dog bites are not a problem, I just don't think that the solution that some have come up with will solve the problem. If you don't fix the root cause, no amount of "bandaids" will fix it.

 

[Casshew]

If you don't fix the root cause, no amount of "bandaids" will fix it.

Bandaids? Banning the breed is the solution not the bandaid. Since this came into affect there have been no dog attacks or fatalities and beleive me, I follow the news.

No vicious dogs = no dead kids

 

[janeb]

Did this Lab try to rip your throat out? kill you? were you able to defend yourself against it? did he back off after biting? Did the police have to come and rescue you? Did someone have to shoot it 4 times in the head to stop the attack?

in the end, does it MATTER??? NO HUMAN AGGRESSIVE DOG SHOULD BE ALLOWED LIVE. do you know labs are STATICALLY MORE DANGEROUS THAN A PIT BULL?? i can't believe the ignorance from people who proclaim they are unpredictable?? or shouldn't be around children?? is this what you listen to when you listen to the media?? hey, i got some ocean front property for sale and i'll throw in the golden gate bridge for free?? PLEASE GO EDUCATE YOURSELVES. the media is giving our breed a bad reputation, A SERIOUS BAD IMAGE AND NO ONE IS BOTHERING TO LOOK UP THE STATITICS OR THE FACTS, and then you have thugs who get their hands on our breed and breed them for ALL THE WRONG REASONS! HEY, HOW ABOUT I SAY ALL BLACK PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS AND ALL BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD BE IN JAIL?? NO DIFFERENT THAN YOU PEOPLE GETTING UP ON YOUR SOAP BOXES AND SAYING ALL PIT BULLS ARE DANGEROUS AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AROUND CHILDREN?? god rest the little girls soul for suffering and my prayers to the family but it is the OWNER'S FAULT for allowing a dog, NO MATTER WHAT BREED, who is human aggressive, to LIVE. do you get it?? you people make me soooo mad, i can't believe the media has brain washed you people. the apbt SCORED 84% in temperment test. they are ALWAYS in the top ten. please, go read the scores, get THE FACTS. www.atts.org do you know who sgt stubby is??? why he is an APBT who is the FIRST dog to be given a metal of honor and the FIRST dog to have a military title. they used this breed to drag wounded military men back to safety by the seat of their pants. THEY WERE THE WWII ICON. and NOW america wants to be bring them to shame giving them a terrible name they do NOT deserve! do you know who DIXIE IS?? she is ALSO an APBT. who defended children of her family and TOOK A BITE FROM A WATER MOCASSIN JUST SO THE KIDS WOULDN'T! STOOD RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE DARN AGGRESSIVE SNAKE WHO WAS GOING STRAIGHT FOR THE CHILDREN. HOW ABOUT PETEY FROM LITTLE RASCALS, HE IS AN APBT, DO YOU THINK HE'S UNPREDICTABLE??? YOU PEOPLE JUST SAID ALL ABPTS ARE UNPREDICTABLE YET YOU WATCHED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THIS APBT SURROUND HIMSELF WITH CHILDREN, LET ME REPEAT THAT CHILDRED, AND YOU WANT TO SAY THIS BREED IS UNPREDICTABLE?? AND NOW YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THE MEDIA??? FOR WHAT?? LET ME GIVE YOU A PIECE OF HISTORY WHILE I'M AT IT. because science wasn't as much advance, old dog men tested this breed for endurance by pit fighting. they NEVER fought them to death. once they realized the dogs defeat, they PULLED their dogs and doctored them. but IF ANY ONE APBT REDIRECTED ITS AGGRESSION TO THE HUMAN, they took them to the woods AND SHOT 'EM. they wanted to SAFELY break up the fight withOUT being bit. human aggression was NEVER SUPPOSE TO BE TOLERATED! the dog was not allowed back into society if deemed dangerous! and now america wants to condemn the WHOLE breed. you are descriminating and trying to take away our constitutional rights. I AM A RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNER AND DESERVE TO OWN THE BREED OF MY CHOICE! I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG, I HAVE NO CRIMINAL RECORD! YET, AMERICA WANTS TO TAKE AWAY MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! FOR WHAT?? BECAUSE THE MEDIA WANTS TO CAPTURE OUR BREED IN A BAD LIGHT, NEVER IN A GOOD LIGHT! GIVE ME A BREAK. YOU PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND. HUMAN AGGRESSION WAS NEVER SUPPOSE TO BE TOLERATED, ONLY DOG AGGRESSION. NOW THUGS AND CRIMINALS WANT OUR BREED FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS AND THEY ARE TRYING TO RUIN WHAT OLD DOG MEN CREATED. THE BREED IS SUPPOSE TO HAVE A HIGH THRESHOLD PAIN TOLERANCE, YES. AND BECAUSE MEAN NASTY CHILDREN WHO TO LIKE TO HIT ANIMALS WITH BASEBALL BATS, PULL THEIR TAILS, THEIR EARS, THEY ABLE TO TOLERATE IT. THIS BREED UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD NEVER REDIRECT ITS AGGRESSION TOWARDS A HUMAN EVEN IF THE CHILD IS ABUSING HIM! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ITS LIKE TO OWN A PIT BULL, YOU HAVE NO IDEA THE DAMAGE THE MEDIA HAS CAUSED, YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW BEAUTIFUL THIS BREED IS, ALL YOU SEE IS WHAT THE MEDIA SHOWS YOU. YOU NEVER WANTED TO GO GET THE FACTS, YOU NEVER WANTED TO HEAR THE TRUTH, JUST WHAT THE PUBLIC TELLS YOU. ITS DICRIMINATION! AND BEFORE YOU POST A REPLY, MAKE SURE YOU SEE THIS VIDEO AND GET SOME EDUMACATION. ONCE AGAIN, GOD REST THE GIRL'S SOUL AND PRAYERS TO THE FAMILY WHO SUFFERED A TERRIBLE LOSS. THE OWNER SHOULD BE JAILED FOR INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, IT IS HIS FAULT FOR NOT HUMANELY TAKING THE DOG TO THE VET TO BE PUT TO SLEEP. THERE IS NO ROOM IN SOCIETY FOR A HUMAN AGGRESSIVE DOG. NO ROOM! btw, i own THREE apbts. they have ALL been around children of my sisters and she trust them MORE THAN HER 5lb Chihuahua who likes to aggressively bite your cheeks if you try to pick her up.

Humanity & Truth Against Media
http://www.pitbullproblem.tk/

 

[Casshew]

Hi JaneB, welcome to WS. This is an emotional issue - I can see you are very passionate about your breed - as you call it.

I have a right to my opinion, your breed is banned where I live. I am very happy about that. I will let you know if any labs kill anyone. So far so good.

 

[Casshew]

You cannot compare humans to animals... Race banning as you call it. People control their actions and thoughts and behaviour. Pitbulls are agressive natually and poor bloodlines & mix breeds are particularily dangerous.

If you want to call me a discriminator about PitBulls - I guess I can live with that - but please leave racist talk off this forum - it has nothing to do with this subject or me.

 

[Casshew]

JaneB, I am not a racist. This has nothing to do with human races, black, white, yellow, etc.

We are talking about a breed of dog.

Please calm down,this board is moderated and they will show you the door.

Tell me about your dog? dogs? I bet you love them dearly and people like me are a thorn in your side. I have no doubt they are loving, loyal pets to you.

 

[aussiegran]

You cannot compare humans to animals... Race banning as you call it. People control their actions and thoughts and behaviour. Pitbulls are agressive natually and poor bloodlines & mix breeds are particularily dangerous.

If you want to call me a discriminator about PitBulls - I guess I can live with that - but please leave racist talk off this forum - it has nothing to do with this subject or me.

I agree Cashew.:clap: