Anonymous wrote:

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.

Until about 15 years ago, pit bulls were family dogs. That's a fact.

The problem, if there is one, with dogs like pits and rotties is 1) idiot owners and 2) the fact that the dogs are big and they are strong. But, they are not inherently dangerous. A big Golden would be pretty overpowering, too.

Every single dog failure is a failure of the owner. Every one.

Finally, common sense!!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Until about 15 years ago, pit bulls were family dogs. That's a fact.

The problem, if there is one, with dogs like pits and rotties is 1) idiot owners and 2) the fact that the dogs are big and they are strong. But, they are not inherently dangerous. A big Golden would be pretty overpowering, too.

Every single dog failure is a failure of the owner. Every one.

That is like saying that every time a child grows up to be a murderer, it is the fault of the parents.
But realistically, since we don't speak dog, we don't know which ones are schizo.

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.

Until about 15 years ago, pit bulls were family dogs. That's a fact.

The problem, if there is one, with dogs like pits and rotties is 1) idiot owners and 2) the fact that the dogs are big and they are strong. But, they are not inherently dangerous. A big Golden would be pretty overpowering, too.

Every single dog failure is a failure of the owner. Every one.

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.

Anonymous wrote:The scariest thing is not just the pit bulls, but their owners' insistence of how sweet, gentle and good with chidren these dogs are, even in the face of facts and statistics.

The pp with the dobermans is far less cary because that person is not deluding herself about the risks of the breed and takes reasonable precautions.

There is a guy in our neighborhood who I have seen twice walking his "gentle" pitbull on the sidewalks by the elementary school just as it is letting out. His arrogance and stupidity makes my blood run cold.

What facts?

Yes. Some statistics were copied and pasted (and we still haven't seen the actual source). Sources about pitbulls surpassing other breeds in temperament testing was also posted. Sources disputing the myth that pitbulls have greater jaw strength then other breeds and can lock their jaws were also posted.

Stereotypes and myths and media reports does not mean an entire breed of dogs is inherently evil. Just like stereotypes and myths and media reports does not mean an entire race of humans is evil. Tomato, tomato. Bad owners = bad dogs. Breed =/= bad dog.

You should never leave any animal alone with a child or blindly assume that everything will be fine. And you need to train kids as well as the dogs. But again, pitbulls who bite do not bite because they are pitbulls. They bite due to poor training (bad owners).

The scariest thing is not just the pit bulls, but their owners' insistence of how sweet, gentle and good with chidren these dogs are, even in the face of facts and statistics.

The pp with the dobermans is far less cary because that person is not deluding herself about the risks of the breed and takes reasonable precautions.

There is a guy in our neighborhood who I have seen twice walking his "gentle" pitbull on the sidewalks by the elementary school just as it is letting out. His arrogance and stupidity makes my blood run cold.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted a link to CDC. I don't have an issue with CDC. I have an issue with 14 year old studies.

Do you have an actual link to the above studies? I'd rather read the studies and see their sources then rely on copy and pasted excerpts.

Still waiting for evidence that dog bites is due to the breed, and not due to failure on the owner's part or other factors. Afterall chaining, gender (male dogs are more likely to bite), and not being neutered are big risk factors.

In 14 years, dogs are pretty much the same.

How about methods of breeding, raising, and training them? I doubt it.

Same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted a link to CDC. I don't have an issue with CDC. I have an issue with 14 year old studies.

Do you have an actual link to the above studies? I'd rather read the studies and see their sources then rely on copy and pasted excerpts.

Still waiting for evidence that dog bites is due to the breed, and not due to failure on the owner's part or other factors. Afterall chaining, gender (male dogs are more likely to bite), and not being neutered are big risk factors.

In 14 years, dogs are pretty much the same.

How about methods of breeding, raising, and training them? I doubt it.

I am the poster who owned the dobermans. I would like everyone to look at this reasonably. I knew many cases where dobies attacked strangers (and owners) and there were many reasons that one could point to in HINDSIGHT for the attacks. But most owners of this breed agree that they are more aggressive than most. We humans wanted the protection of the wolf, but we needed to take out some of the unpredictable viscous behavior to domesticate these animals, but be careful, they still have wild lineage. The wolf is still in there to varying degree. The breeding has been selective for different tasks and that can not be denied. The herding breeds had their function, the terrier had theirs, the guard dogs were not chosen to be passive. The owner plays a part, but it is very hard for anyone to turn a golden retriever into a killer, it can be done, but it is hard. Most pit bulls will not kill, but a disproportionate number have done so. I am most concerned about the owners who are so confident that their dog will not attack. If one of my dobies ever attacked a human, there would have been very little that I would have been able to do to stop it, based on the size and strength of the dogs. For that reason, prevention was the next best thing. Bad dogs would have been put to sleep, tall fences, no kids, no lies like "he won't bite", dogs put away when I had guests. Not once did my dogs ever bite anyone. One did bite another dog (german shepherd) and one did charge after a guest. But you all who have pit bulls, need to be realists.
When I had children, I switched to more passive breeds and the difference is remarkable.

Anonymous wrote:I posted a link to CDC. I don't have an issue with CDC. I have an issue with 14 year old studies.

Do you have an actual link to the above studies? I'd rather read the studies and see their sources then rely on copy and pasted excerpts.

Still waiting for evidence that dog bites is due to the breed, and not due to failure on the owner's part or other factors. Afterall chaining, gender (male dogs are more likely to bite), and not being neutered are big risk factors.

In 14 years, dogs are pretty much the same.

I posted a link to CDC. I don't have an issue with CDC. I have an issue with 14 year old studies.

Do you have an actual link to the above studies? I'd rather read the studies and see their sources then rely on copy and pasted excerpts.

Still waiting for evidence that dog bites is due to the breed, and not due to failure on the owner's part or other factors. Afterall chaining, gender (male dogs are more likely to bite), and not being neutered are big risk factors.

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."

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.

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

CDC is. But there is no comparable data to other breeds or data showing the claim that pitbulls are responsible for most maulings and deaths (as PP claimed). And that is not recent data. 1997 and 1998? Studies that are over 10 years old aren't exactly reliable.

There also still has been zero evidence that pitbulls are inherently aggressive, evil, will "snap", etc.

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