Pit Bulls

I'm also exploring this topic with an open mind. For the moment I'll play devil's advocate and present the following research data:

ATTACKING THE DOG-BITE EPIDEMIC: WHY BREED-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION WON'T SOLVE THE DANGEROUS-DOG DILEMMA

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus74fordhamlrev2847.htm

Please read and comment at your leisure.

I include here a brief excerpt of some information to whet the appetite:

". Dangerous-Dog Laws

More than thirty states, the District of Columbia, and numerous cities have enacted dangerous-dog laws as a means of addressing the dog-bite *2855 epidemic. [FN71] These laws seek to reduce the threat dangerous dogs pose to the public by requiring owners of dogs so labeled to abide by statutorily defined precautionary measures. [FN72] A dangerous or vicious dog is typically defined as one that, without provocation, seriously injures or kills a person lawfully on the owner's premises; thus dangerous-dog laws impose regulations on owners by examining the behavioral history of a particular dog and owner rather than base a determination of dangerousness on breed alone. [FN73] Though procedural provisions of dangerous-dog laws vary by jurisdiction, some generalizations can be made.

Enforcement of dangerous-dog laws often relies on formal complaints from members of the public, animal control officers, or bite victims to identify dangerous dogs. [FN74] Generally, the appropriate animal control agency notifies the owner that complaints have been filed against the dog or that the dog has been determined by that agency's independent investigation to be vicious or dangerous. [FN75] The owner is then provided an *2856 opportunity to contest the determination before a judge or public health official. [FN76] If the judge or official confirms the previous determination, the owner must adhere to statutorily provided safety precautions or risk fines or forfeiture and possible destruction of the dog. [FN77] In situations involving a serious attack or other unusual circumstances, the judge may order immediate destruction of the dog or removal from city limits. [FN78]

Though not frequently, dangerous-dog laws have been the subject of constitutional attacks, primarily on the grounds of procedural due process. [FN79] To fully understand dangerous-dog laws and the states' ability to regulate ownership of dangerous or vicious dogs, however, an examination of the constitutionality of such legislation necessarily begins with the ability of the states to regulate ownership of dogs in general."

Furthermore, regarding the under-inclusiveness issue:

" Under-inclusiveness Challenges

Opponents to breed-specific legislation also challenge the laws as underinclusive, arguing that in regulating only pit bulls and not all vicious dogs or even other aggressive breeds, the legislature took an impermissibly small step toward remedying the public threat posed by dangerous dogs. [FN149] However, the Supreme Court has stated that the legislature is permitted to provide remedies in a piecemeal fashion:

The problem of legislative classification is a perennial one, admitting of no doctrinaire definition. Evils in the same field may be of different dimensions and proportions, requiring different remedies. Or so the legislature may think. Or the reform may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind. The legislature may select one phase of one field and apply a remedy there, neglecting the others. [FN150]

In other words, a law will not be deemed unconstitutional merely because it contains classifications that are under-inclusive. [FN151] The court in Vanater *2865 v. Village of South Point [FN152] relied on Dandridge v. Williams to uphold the constitutionality of a pit bull ban that defined a pit bull as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, an American Staffordshire Terrier, or any mix thereof. [FN153] The plaintiffs argued that the ordinance was under-inclusive for failing to include other breeds "which could be grouped into the dangerous Pit Bull category." [FN154] The court found that the village could enact regulatory measures against only pit bulls in light of the type of threat those dogs posed to the community, and failure to name or ban other potentially dangerous breeds did not render the law unconstitutional. [FN155]"

Great resource for insight into this problem. Here's an excerpt from your valued link:

"Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity
to be listed, pit bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost
as frequently as children. This is a very rare pattern: children are
normally at greatest risk from dogbite because they play with dogs more
often, have less experience in reading dog behavior, are more likely to
engage in activity that alarms or stimulates a dog, and are less able to
defend themselves when a dog becomes aggressive. Pit bulls seem to differ
behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking
people who are larger than they are. They are also notorious for attacking
seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking
pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus
the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity
to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog."

"Rottweilers by contrast show a fairly normal child/adult attack
ratio. They seem to show up disproportionately often in the mauling,
killing, and maiming statistics simply because they are both quite popular
and very powerful, capable of doing a great deal of damage in cases where
bites by other breeds might be relatively harmless."

Lastly (from foxfyres link), the conclusion:


" . . . For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to
regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no
matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary
circumstances.

Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is
relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment,
someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the
actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a
Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that
has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as
their victims are paying the price.

Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be
handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special
requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other
animals, if they are to be kept at all."

they were bred to fight and to pull.

:/ nowhere close to a good hunting or guard dog..

i for one have yet to meet an unpredicatable pitbull, they act just like they are trained.

most people train them wrong, or not at all.

go figure.

They were bred to hunt boars and bears and were once mostly used in bear and bull baiting which was eventually considered unethical and the practice outlawed almost everywhere. So, a lot of them were then bred for dog fights which, as humankind sometimes looks at things, was considered more ethical.

But I am one who thinks people should be judged by what they are rather than condemned via history, so I do not see owning a pit bull as a moral or ethical issue if the owner owns, appreciates, or loves pit bulls.



Even if we agree with you that right training takes all the dangerous aggression out of these dogs, the problem remains that you cannot know whether a pit bull has been 'trained right'. And the consequences when one does attack are generally so much more severe than what happens in most dog attacks, that such evidence must be taken into account.

i find it odd that they talk about adverse conditions relating to other dog attacks, but not pitubulls..

that loving home bs doesnt really fly with me, like when an ex girlfriends pitbull american bulldog mix bit the owners 4 year old son.

what did he tell them? he threw it down the stairs and treated it like a punching bag qon a regular basis?

of course not.

apparently he was the best dog owner in las vegas.

check it out, pitbull versus a bull..

http://dumpalink.com/videos/Pitbull_vs._bull-3k7f.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7013650950411952306wow these are tear jerkers

Couple of comments first a household with children and adults and a normally raised Pit Bull the odds are something like a thousand to one that if the children are going to be harm or even kill in that household it will be a human member of that household not the Pit bull that will be the agent of that harm.

In the whole country with somewhere in the neighborhood of a 100 millions dogs in human households the average death rate per year from all dogs attacks combine is around 30 a year. At least that is the last figures I had seen.

And as far as the ratio of adult/human attacks being more for Pit Bull then other breed what to bet that those number include dogs train to be fighting and or attack dogs not household pets?

This is a non-issue in the real universe as there are one hell of a lot more danger then can be found in a normal household then the family pet no matter what the breed happen to be.

Once more I am old enough to remember when the same nonsense was written in the same words about Dobemans.

Let us understand something here. Aren't you the one who is the owner of a pit bull *(2 in fact) who the police recently hassled because you left the dog unattended while tied to a fence outside an apartment in a an urban area?

Have I misunderstood this or am I misrepresenting what you did with YOUR pit bull?

So, you are example of a well educated handler/owner, right?

I'll quote your own words "yesterday a cop flipped out on me, for tying my dog to a fence, at 10 at night.."

So, this is responsible trained handling of a pitbull?

Lord you people are fools to wish to ban Pit bulsl or any other breed because they are too dangerous. It a wonder how many people are welling to shut off their minds and let the news media or anyone else for that matter lead them around.

Twenty-six fatal attacks by all breed of dogs a year on average and as you can see if we just try to count the well treated family pets that turn for no reason the number would be in the range of 2 or three from the information below a year.

Yet I am sure you all picture pit bulls tearing out the throats of children in their families by the hundreds as that is the silly impression that the news try to give us.





The number of children who drown in back yard pools every year is 300 http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12643013

and the numbers kill by being let in a hot car is 130 http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=52&threadid=2303039


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EPF/is_3_105/ai_n15679358/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dividing 238 fatal dogs attacks by 9 years get an average of 26 deaths a year when we have somewhere in the area of a 100 millions dogs in this country!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fatal Dog Attacks

This pie chart shows the number of fatal dog attacks from
1979 to 1998. The number of attacks, by breed, is in red;
the percentage of the total number is in black.

Other breeds 55 (23%)
Malamute 15 (6.3%)
Husky type 21 (8.8%)
German shepherd 27 (11.4%)
Rottweiler 44 (18.5%)
Pit bull 76 (32%)

Number of fatal dog attacks from 1979 to 1988: 238

Note: Table made from pie chart.

Source: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,
USA Today
Study the pie chart. Then complete the exercise below by writing A, B, or C in each blank.

--1. What percentage of attacks involved pit bulls and rottweilers? (A) 40.5 percent, (B) 50.5 percent



Here are the statistics of fatal dog attacks which were taken from the book "Fatal Dog Attacks".
This book would be a good one for insurance companies and cities with BSLs to read.




"FATAL DOG ATTACKS"
The Stories Behind the Statistics
by Karen Delise

THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001 *

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

Location of Attack
25% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs
25% resulted from dogs loose in their yard
23% occurred inside the home
17% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their property
10% involved leashed dogs or miscellaneous circumstances

Number of Dogs
68% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by a single dog
32% was the result of a multiple 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

The age group with the highest number of fatalities were children under the age of 1 year old; accounting for 19% of the deaths due to dog attack. Over 95% of these fatalities occurred when an infant was left unsupervised with a dog(s).

The age group with the second-highest number of fatalities were 2-year-olds; accounting for 11% of the fatalities due to dog attack. Over 87% of these fatalities occurred when the 2-year-old child was left unsupervised with a dog(s) or the child wandered off to the location of the dog(s).

Boys aged 1 - 12 years old were 2.5 times more likely to be the victim of a fatal dog attack than girls of the same age.

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%).

Reproductive Status of Dogs
Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved in fatal dog attacks were unaltered males.
From 2000-2001 there were 41 fatal dog attacks. Of these, 28 were attacks by a single dog and 13 fatalities were caused by multiple dogs.

Of the 28 single dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000-2001;
26 were males and 2 were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were found to be intact (the reproductive status of the remaining 5 males dogs could not be determined).

States with the Most Fatalities - 1965-2001
California, 47; Texas, 32; Alaska, 26; Florida, 22; New York, 19; Michigan, 18; Illinois, 18; North Carolina, 17; Georgia, 16.

While at times informative, statistics on fatal dog attacks can also be misleading. For example, a number of cases were a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or GSD were counted as causing a human fatality were in reality the direct result of gross human negligence or criminal intent (i.e. discarding a newborn in the yard where the dogs were kept, or cases of extremely emaciated animals, or cases were the dog was ordered or encouraged to attack the victim).

This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value, only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events.

The preceding information and statistics are excerpts from the book:
__________________
Brandy (6-2-00)Brock (12-25-04)
Lily (11-22-06)
Rotties At the Bridge:
Raven's Mystic Beauty ( 8-8-98 to 11-22-06)
Kasy von Waldlichtung (4-11-89 to 8-22-98)
Buddy (10-1-90 to 1-27-99)

define unattended.

cops was just on coke/meth , steroids maybe? iono, or someshit.

i could see them the whole time, they stared at me.

i can see alaska as a higher-risk area for dog attacks..

the only dog to bite me was a northern breed. everyone flipped out but me, i sat there face to face with it and petted him.. i was like 12 lol.

i started throwing a tantrum when they started talking about taking the dog away i was like no, no, no, no.

lol. my fualt for scaring the thing.

wow the scar is still there, like half an inch across..

so answering your question, i am indeed a great owner and handler.


extremly well educated, and have great skill at deciphering dogs body language

what sucks tho, is my male is so skittish, last night i walked them downtown and had a lovely conversation with a woman who swore she turned 30 that night, i doubted her very much so and insisted she just turned 21



she was gorgeous, anyways this man sittin on the garbage can freaks out cuz my dog put his paws on the trash can, and when he did my dog pissed himself and cowered in fear behind me, and the guy looks baffled, im like dude hes so much more scared of you then you are of him..

i just worry his skittishness might turn to aggression or a bite coming from fear.

thats why i walk them so late, my baby girl i can walk anytime though, anywhere shes great with people, not so much with other dogs tho shes been attacked so many godamn times it sucks balls, never once from a pitbull from ******* american bulldogs and ****, well to you laymen u would consider that a pitbull but thats the closest so far.

Some people have a fear of dogs to an irrational point and I think this is driving the ban this breed or that breed and also drive dogs turning on owners without cause stories/claims.

In view of the 100 millions or so dogs in the US living with people 24/7 the safety record is remarkable and living with any breed of dog is far far safer then living with another human by the numbers.

I remember over thirty/forty years ago doing some wash in a small little open building/shelter with a few washing machines/dryers serving a small trailer park when I feel something pressing high against my back and when I turn there was the largest dog I had ever seen in my life facing me. I did not need to look down far to be looking him in the eyes.

As I look at him and hope this “monster” was friendly I begin to talk to him and within minutes we was firm friends. A car then drove up to the shelter with a woman a few kids and a very annoy gentleman in it as he took note of my loving up this dog.

It would seem that the lady was doing her wash when this big harmless dog had shown up and she drop everything as she and the kids ran back to her home demanding that her husband come with her to deal with this large threat to her safety.

As I was leaving her kids were happily playing with the dog and the only risk to their safety would be if he ended up knocking them over by reason of his size.