Why do people still think that these ferocious dog breeds are safe and should be tolerated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legit question here: Are you pit lovers also gun owners? I associate pit bulls with people who are into weaponry.

Ha ha! Really? I can't imagine anyone asking such a silly question after the discussion we've seen so far. Lefty, granola-crunching, nonviolence advocate here! As I and others noted earlier, the shelters have lots of pits and pit mixes, so anyone who wants to adopt a dog in DC is going to be more likely to find a pitbull than previously. I see more and more white middle class gentrifiers (such as I) with pits now. I don't think they have weapons but then I never did ask. I shouldn't make assumption about their politics!

So true. Lefty non-violent, pit bull owner supports this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ok, you don't like CDC.


By compiling U.S. and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2011,1 Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, shows the breeds most responsible for serious injury and death.
Download Study
Download 30-Year Summary Report
Study highlights
The combination of pit bulls, rottweilers, their close mixes and wolf hybrids:

77% of attacks that induce bodily harm
73% of attacks to children
81% of attack to adults
68% of attacks that result in fatalities
76% that result in maiming

Discussion notes:

Even if the pit bull category was "split three ways," attacks by pit bulls and their closest relatives would still outnumber attacks by any other breed.
Pit bulls are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as children, a characteristic not shared by any other breed.
If a pit bull or rottweiler has a bad moment, instead of being bitten, often someone is maimed or killed; that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk.

No offense but, really, this information from a website that encourages people to kill their neighbors dogs. Before one more person posts these statistics that include "pit bulls, rottweilers, their close mixes and wolf hybrids" please realize you are not even posting data about APBT or Staffordshore Terriers (dogs considered to be pit bulls.). There is no worse research methodology!! It is like saying labs and their relatives: wolves, poodles, beagles and poodles (or whatever we decide to through into our group of dog subjects) are responsible for X many attacks. Weak, really weak. It has been debunked twice (at least already), stop posting this and actually read through previous pages before you make a fool of yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:another one, but you will shoot the messenger here of course ...


Seattle, Washington (April 22, 2009) -- DogsBite.org, a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks, releases its first multi-year report on U.S. dog bite fatalities. The report covers a 3-year period -- from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008 -- and analyzes data gathered from 88 dog bite incidences that caused death to a U.S. citizen.

The report documents dog breed information, property information (where the attack occurred) as well as dog bite victim age information.

Of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DogsBite.org, pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59% (52). This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period. The data also shows that pit bulls commit the vast majority of off-property attacks that result in death. Only 18% (16) of the attacks occurred off owner property, yet pit bulls were responsible for 81% (13).

Pit bulls are also more likely to kill an adult than a child. In the 3-year period, pit bulls killed more adults (ages 21 and over), 54%, than they did children (ages 11 and younger), 46%. In the 21-54 age group, pit bulls were responsible for 82% (14) of the deaths. The data indicates that pit bulls do not only kill children and senior citizens; they kill men and women in their prime years as well.

The report also shows that of the six victim age groups documented, the 55 and older group suffered the most fatalities 26% (23), followed by the 2-4 age group 22% (19). Between the ages of 0-4, the study reveals that 14% (12) of the fatal attacks involved a "watcher," a person such as a grandparent or babysitter watching the child. Of these attacks, 75% (9) involved a grandparent type.

The founder of DogsBite.org, Colleen Lynn, adds, "The off-property statistical data about pit bulls shows just how dangerous they are." She noted that six senior citizens were killed under these circumstances: "Two were killed while standing in their own backyard," she said. "Four others were killed while taking a morning walk or getting the mail."

Everyone has one source: Dogbites.org. Dog rescue leagues (not just pit bull specific) have been put on alert about this site and the people who give advice on killing dogs. Notice they never define a pit bull as an American Pit Bill Terrier or a Staffordshire Terrier. They typically say "pit bulls and their relatives." What the heck are they even looking at - I don't think they even know. Please refer to reputable sources like National Geographic that were previously posted. Can you find sources other than the laughable dogbites.org??

[Anonymous]

"encouraging people to kill their neighbors' dog" = defending your family from a violent animal. just because you disagree with the results does not make them less valid.

[Anonymous]

Advocating killing neighbor's pets is not okay. This is plain scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"encouraging people to kill their neighbors' dog" = defending your family from a violent animal. just because you disagree with the results does not make them less valid.

Oh. My. God. If you are worried about a neighbor's dog, please, PLEASE call animal control or police. DO NOT KILL YOUR NEIGHBORS' DOG!! I cannot believe I even had to write that. What is wrong with you people?? Now I am scared to let me dogs out into their own yard knowing there are people like you out there.

A few years ago someone was throwing poisoned meatballs into the yards of dog owners in Centreville and killing them. Are you saying this is okay?? This is the behavior of a sociopath/anti-social personality. Please do not say it is "defending" anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"encouraging people to kill their neighbors' dog" = defending your family from a violent animal. just because you disagree with the results does not make them less valid.

Oh. My. God. If you are worried about a neighbor's dog, please, PLEASE call animal control or police. DO NOT KILL YOUR NEIGHBORS' DOG!! I cannot believe I even had to write that. What is wrong with you people?? Now I am scared to let me dogs out into their own yard knowing there are people like you out there.

A few years ago someone was throwing poisoned meatballs into the yards of dog owners in Centreville and killing them. Are you saying this is okay?? This is the behavior of a sociopath/anti-social personality. Please do not say it is "defending" anyone.

WEEEEL. I am not in favor of that, but it would be something that would go through my mind if there was a serious danger and animal control did nothing, and the threats were still present.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ok. give all of these "bad owners" golden retrievers and have them turn them out for dogfighting. lets see what that gets out. lets see how many serious maulings they cause the "bad owners" are attracted to these dogs for a reason.

do you deny that different breeds have different skills and purposes? a german or australian shepherd who has never seen a sheep will know how to herd instinctively. a lab will have the swimming ability that other breeds will never have. the nose on some of the bloodhound type hounds is ridiculous, as is the sight and speed of the greyhound. etc.

Golden Retrievers bite too. So do any other dog. A badly trained lab will bite. There is one in our apartment building and I am waiting for him to hurt someone. He's already scratched my arms up by being an overzealous jumper who wants to knock everyone down.

I said pages ago: even herding dogs can be trained not to nip at people's heels. Yes, breeds often have some "tendencies" (and I disagree with the ignorant claim that pitbulls have the tendency to be aggressive and "snap"). Training is key. Bad owners = bad dogs. Breed =/= bad dogs.

Someone already addressed that those involved with dog fighting pick from any good sized breeds. Pitbulls are often chosen because once you are their master, they are extremely loyal and will do whatever you ask them to do - including fight to the death. However, that same trait makes them extremely good family dogs. Again: training.

[Anonymous]

amazing how sadly blinded the pit bull defenders are. and for what purpose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:amazing how sadly blinded the pit bull defenders are. and for what purpose?

I'm starting to think you are just trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:amazing how sadly blinded the pit bull defenders are. and for what purpose?

I'm starting to think you are just trolling.

no, I am the normal majority. I am a dog lover, have had many dogs in my lifetime. never occurred to me to buy a pit. what is the point? what can you get from a pit that you cannot get from a dog that doesn't have the image and insurance problems? that is assuming that truly there is no greater risk with those dogs? again, what is the point? why not just a breed that won't create problems for you? clearly from reading this thread, most people see pits as dangerous. so why turn off your neighbors? why alarm your insurance company? why take the risk? just get a friggin golden retriever.

[Anonymous]

Listen, if it's a dog's life vs a human, the HUMAN 'S life wins out! Why are we still discussing this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:amazing how sadly blinded the pit bull defenders are. and for what purpose?

I'm starting to think you are just trolling.

no, I am the normal majority. I am a dog lover, have had many dogs in my lifetime. never occurred to me to buy a pit. what is the point? what can you get from a pit that you cannot get from a dog that doesn't have the image and insurance problems? that is assuming that truly there is no greater risk with those dogs? again, what is the point? why not just a breed that won't create problems for you? clearly from reading this thread, most people see pits as dangerous. so why turn off your neighbors? why alarm your insurance company? why take the risk? just get a friggin golden retriever.

You have yet to provide evidence or dispute anything. And, assuming you are the same poster, you've done nothing but say the same things over and over rather then actually addressing any one's points.

There are a lot of pitbulls in shelters. People who are looking for a dog will encounter pitbulls. That's why we got ours. I don't care if a bunch of ignoramuses think all pitbulls are dangerous based on stereotypes, myths, and over hyped fear based media reports. Most of those people don't even understand what a pitbull is. And everyone who has met my dog doesn't have a problem with it. And hey, if people believe that my dog is capable of ripping their throat out that means I won't get mugged or raped while out for a walk right?

There is a risk with untrained golden retrievers. There is a risk with untrained Chihuahuas. There is a risk with any untrained or spoiled rotten dog. Already covered that. In fact, as I mentioned I'm waiting for the horribly trained lab near me to bite someone. And its a BIG dog, and not even fully grown and it doesn't listen to its owner and it runs away and it jumps on people and the other day I saw it snap at its owner when the owner tried to drag it away from someone. Untrained dogs and piss-poor owners are the problem, not the breed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:amazing how sadly blinded the pit bull defenders are. and for what purpose?

I'm starting to think you are just trolling.

no, I am the normal majority. I am a dog lover, have had many dogs in my lifetime. never occurred to me to buy a pit. what is the point? what can you get from a pit that you cannot get from a dog that doesn't have the image and insurance problems? that is assuming that truly there is no greater risk with those dogs? again, what is the point? why not just a breed that won't create problems for you? clearly from reading this thread, most people see pits as dangerous. so why turn off your neighbors? why alarm your insurance company? why take the risk? just get a friggin golden retriever.

I too had dogs all my life, worked at vet clinics and am a huge dog lover. I bought into the the myth of pit bulls, until I adopted one. Then, I realized what I was missing out on. These dogs are so sweet, goofy and loyal. Yes, other dogs are as well. But, they are not being put down at the rate of pit bulls in shelters. I am fairly sure all the pit owners on here did not "buy a pit," they adopted. I would never buy any dog. Why buy a dog when you can save a life at a shelter?

Did you know that in the early part of the 20th Century, the American Pit Bull Terrier was the number one breed chosen for the family pet? You know why, because they are awesome family dogs. If you have not been around one, you do not know how wonderful they are. I did not know this until the past few years. The "normal majority" has not owned a pit either, and are scared because of media hype. If pit bulls were so dangerous, there would be clear studies showing that the American Pit Bull Terrier is dangerous. But, there is not a single one that I have seen. Why is there an abundance of pro-pit bulls sites, with FACTS about what great dogs they are, but only one or two anti-pit bull sites? Because, to know a pit, is to love a pit. Most (if not all) of the anti-pit bull people have never met one. You may as well be talking about the big, bad scary boogeyman - something you have no experience with.

Why get a pit? Because they have a better temperament than most dogs (refer back to the study mentioned earlier), National Geographic determine their bite is less powerful than the average dog, they are incredible with families and kids and they are being euthanized at alarming rates in shelters. Any true dog lover would do their due diligence on a breed before condemning them. Have you ever met an American Pit Bull Terrier? I can't imagine you have, or else you would not even need to ask that question.

Btw, my neighbors, family and friends LOVE my pits! Everyone who has met mine, loves them and a few people we know now have a adopted them too. That is "normal," my friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol, the CDC is not reputable???
Data for human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) identified previously for the period of 1979 through 1996 were combined with human DBRF newly identified for 1997 and 1998. Human DBRF were identified by searching news accounts and by use of The Humane Society of the United States' registry databank.
During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs were involved in 238 human dog bite related fatalities during the past 20 years. Pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in over half of these fatalities and from 1997 to 1998 were involved in 67%.
During 1997 to 1998, fatal attacks were reported from 17 states; California 4; Georgia and North Carolina 3 each; Kansas, Texas, and Wisconsin 2 each; and Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, South Dakota, and Tennessee 1 each.
Of 227 reports with relevant data, 55 (24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off their owners' property, 133 (58%) involved unrestrained dogs on their owners' property, 38 (17%) involved restrained dogs on their owners' property, and 1 (< 1%) involved a restrained dog off its owner's property.
Four hundred and three dogs contributed to these attacks. In 160 deaths, only 1 dog was involved; in 49 deaths, 2 dogs were involved; and in 15 deaths, 3 dogs. Four and 7 dogs were involved in 3 deaths each; 5, 6, and 10 dogs were involved in 2 deaths each; and 11 and 14 dogs were responsible for 1 death each

Pp, you really need to read the entire study if you are going to quote it on DCUM. I was interested in this point (and the fact that it came from the CDC) so I followed up and read the study which the CDC website linked to. It was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. It can be found here:
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf
The study notes the difficulty in determining clearly exactly what kind of breeds were responsible for Dog Bite Related Fatalities. It also noted that the breeds with the most bites varied over time and cited studies showing other breeds having been responsible for more DBRFs than pitbulls in different periods. The study also came out against outlawing specific breeds and recommended focusing on specific owner and dog behavior.

Additionally, the place on the CDC where this link is located also states the following:

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 Adobe PDF file). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

As well, the CDC supports community efforts to prevent dogbites and links to a taskforce report from the American Veterinary Medical Association which also recommends against breed specific legislation in addition to suggesting a comprehensive community approach to reducing dog bites. That report is here: http://www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf -- and notes in particular:

Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.7 Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular large breeds are a problem. This should be expected, because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite, and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury. There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury. Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete.7 Breed data likely vary between communities, states, or regions, and can even vary between neighborhoods within a community.

It's quite clear the CDC opposes Breed Specific Legislation so please do not use the research they cite to suggest otherwise.