70 Comments:

• It's shocking to see that pit bulls have been projected as savage beasts. They are lovely creatures and need out companionship and love to adjust to the not-so-dog-friendly human environment.

  By  Vikas Shekhawat, at 5:21 AM, November 24, 2005  

  ---

• "Lawmakers seem to be more interested in gay rights, helping illegal aliens, and kicking God out of our schools." As a fellow dog lover, I'm insulted that you used this right wing insensitive statement. You clearly don't understand the concept of a seperation of church and state or other important issues we face. It's no wonder we can't get appropriate laws to keep dangerous pets from our neighborhoods. Maybe we should hang a crucifix on pit bulls and that would solve the problem?

  By  Jeff F, at 2:39 PM, November 25, 2005  

  ---

• Hey Jeff F, show me where in the Constitution it says, "separation of church and state"?
  
  Here is a link to the Constitution online. Show me.
  
  Doesn't exist, huh?
  
  Here's what it says. The First Amendment says the following
  
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
  
  It says that Congress cannot make any laws in favor of religion, nor can it stop anyone from expressing it freely. You can't put in it, nor can you kick it out. It goes both ways Jeff.
  
  Second, it's focused on Congress. It says "Congress shall make no law", it doesn't say that "Schools shall make no policy".

  By  Steve, at 3:29 PM, November 25, 2005  

  ---

• I wish Steve would stick to disussing dogish issues and skip the political stuff. I don't come here to read about the liberal versus conservative thing; I come here to read about dogs.
  
  If I want political diatribe, I'll listen to Limbaugh or Air America.

  By  Scot Kamins, at 4:00 PM, November 25, 2005  

  ---

• Good point Scott. I'll try to put a muzzle on it!

  By  Steve, at 4:36 PM, November 25, 2005  

  ---

• The fact remains that something needs to be done, either by the government or by the people.
  http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/27/woman.mauled.ap/index.html

  By  Chris Dillon, at 1:04 PM, November 27, 2005  

  ---

• Steve,
  
  First, I never said anything about the constitution. There is a need for a seperation of church and state, period.
  
  Second, my point was well put by Scot Kamins. Stick to dog stories and leave your opinion about what you think lawmakers are more interested in to the political websites.
  
  I have a dog with pit bull in her. She's a great dog that is good with children and adults. Unfortunately, she's aggressive with other dogs, mostly small ones. I am concerned about these stories in the press of dog maulings. I can't speak for all pit bull owners, but my dog is not a threat to people. Every time I read or hear about another pit bull attack, I wonder when they're going to outlaw anything that looks like a pit.
  
  I feel for the man who's child was attacked. We certainly need to do something about aggressive dogs. But let's keep our focus here so we can stop people from overreacting and making harsh laws that only hinder us good dog owners.
  
  Thanks.

  By  Jeff F, at 2:07 PM, November 27, 2005  

  ---

• They are lovely creatures and need out companionship and love to adjust to the not-so-dog-friendly human environment.
  
  It has come to the point where such arguments are becoming absurd.
  
  Pit bulls don't need "love" to adjust to the human envioronmment which their owners place them in, they need serious training.
  
  The fact is that domestic dog breeds are the product of intense human engineering. Certain breeds have been created and bred in a way that enhances their injury and killing capability and their aggression.
  
  This fact is not like projecting racism when it comes to humans. Dog breeds are bred for purposes. Certain cows give 30 times the milk production of others -- it is not something one "trains" in or out of those cows.
  
  Our dog was mauled and killed by a pit-bull three years ago. The attack came from no where. If my 14-year-old child had been walking the dog she most likely would have gotten severely harmed or worse. As it is, it took all my wits and strength (and a steel pipe luckily nearby) to kill the other dog.
  
  The data on pit bulls is there. for the number of pit bulls the number of attacks and severe injury is incredible. Anyone who denies this needs to go back to math 101. To say the pits are adorable and sweet is meaningless. the dog has an inordinant capacity and breeding to kill

  By  Anonymous, at 4:36 PM, November 27, 2005  

  ---

• The three breeds commonly described as 'pit bulls' (pit bull is not a breed) have no more inherant capability to damage humans than any other dog. A delineation between dog aggression and human aggression must be known; these dogs were bred for the ability to distingiush. Perhaps you should tell the mother who's child was killed by a Pomeranian that only 'pit bulls' are the problem. Or what about the Wheaten terrier that mauled a person?
  
  There is a simple reason why the NUMBER of 'pit bull' attacks seem higher. There are more of them out there than Golden Retrievers or Labradors. If there are 10 Labs, and 100 APBTs, and 2 APBTs attack, with one Lab attacking, Labs would be statistically more dangerous. Not only that, a number of so called 'pit bull' attacks were actually perpetrated by other breeds. There are 25 breeds of dogs commonly reported to be 'pit bulls'. Can you tell the difference between a Dogo Argentino, Bullmastiff, Presa Canario, Tosa Inu, and Rhodesian Ridgeback and an American Pit Bull Terrier? I doubt it. I've seen Border Collies called Pit bulls, Labs, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Pugs and Jack Russel Terriers called pit bulls.
  
  I would trust an APBT, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or Amstaff over a Golden Retriever any day.

  By  Janine, at 5:10 PM, November 27, 2005  

  ---

• Wow Janine, you simply do not know your facts. My guess is you know nothing about dogs. (Pit bull owners tend to mostly be amatuers.)
  EG:
  There is a simple reason why the NUMBER of 'pit bull' attacks seem higher. There are more of them out there than Golden Retrievers or Labradors.
  
  That is laughable. You obviously do not knwo anything about canine populations in the U.S. There are about 35 TIMES more Labs than pit bulls. There are more goldens, more GSDs etc.
  
  The three breeds commonly described as 'pit bulls' (pit bull is not a breed) have no more inherant capability to damage humans than any other dog.
  
  That is a lie. Even pitbull owners will tell you you are completely wrong. They are bred for exceptional bite power, imperviousness to pain, exceptional territorial agression., etc.
  
  The US departement of health compiles statistics on injury, serious ijnury and death from dog bites. Pit bulls have 15 times the chance of seriously injuring a person or a child than the avrage dog. And those are weighted by breed.
  
  There are 25 breeds of dogs commonly reported to be 'pit bulls'. Can you tell the difference between a Dogo Argentino, Bullmastiff, Presa Canario, Tosa Inu, and Rhodesian Ridgeback and an American Pit Bull Terrier?
  
  I have worked with all these dogs professionally. My guess is you could not tell the differnece. Ridgeback? are you off? you are kidding right?
  
  I would trust an APBT, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or Amstaff over a Golden Retriever any day.
  
  That is your mistake. More breed bans on bit bulls are passed every month in the US. Pit bull owners can continue to delude themselves but plenty of other dog owners know excatly what the problem with this very agrssive adn dangerous breed is.

  By  Frank, at 5:28 PM, November 28, 2005  

  ---

• Frank, I don't even own a 'Pit Bull'. Instead I've worked with them in a shelter environment for over five years. Never has one tried to harm me in any way. I have been attacked by a Westie, a Kelpie, an Akita, and a Lab cross.
  
  On your first comment: There are more REGISTERED Labs in the US. The vast majority of APBTs, Staffy Bulls, and Amstaffs go unregistered, or are registered as another breed to avoid discrimination. Most commonly, I've seen them registered as Lab crosses and Boxer crosses. Besides, if there are so many more of Goldens and GSDs out there, then why aren't they overflowing the shelters? The pit types we get aren't dumped because of temperament, but because of owners who are too lazy to housetrain them. Ask any urban or semi-urban shelter what breed they commonly get. Trying walking up and down a street in the city. There are not more Goldens than the pit types.
  
  What's wrong? That the term 'pit bull' encompasses three breeds, or the inherant capability of damage? Try doing some research on the breeds known as 'pit bulls'. On the issue of jaw strength, three breeds were recently tested on bite strength in a Schutzhund like trial. Of the three breeds tested, the APBT had the LOWEST bite strength. Please don't tell me you've bought into the crock that states 'pit bulls' have a bite strength of 2000 psi. The APBT tested? He was around 300, the same as humans. Territorial aggression was never a trait bred for in the APBT, Staffy Bull or Amstaff. Correctly bred, they are terrible watch dogs, because they were bred to love people. If you want, I can contact a professional Amstaff breeder to verify this fact. Keep in mind, this won't be the type of breeder who has them 'short and low' and weighing 120 lbs. Those aren't Amstaffs or APBTs. They're Mastiff mixes.
  
  They do have a higher pain threshold than other dogs, but it only relates to dog on dog aggression. The only problem I've seen crop up due to this is because they're so stoic, it's hard to tell when they're in pain and need a vet. Any dog can kill, any dog can cause extreme damage. Did you heard about the Golden who ripped off part of a boy's scalp?
  
  As for the US department of health, again, there are more Pit type dogs out there. Not only that, a fair percentage are likely to be false identification. Recently I watched a news report claiming a 'pit bull' had killed several zoo animals. The dog was, without a doubt, a Border Collie. I seriously doubt the ability of the average person on the street to correctly identify a 'pit bull'. Then, of course, was the 10 year old boy who claimed to have been attacked by an APBT. Instead, he was bitten by his freind's GSD and was trying to cover up for the dog. If you desire, I can find you links.
  
  Having seen the majority of the dogs I mentioned, yes, I could tell the difference. Frankly, I don't understand how a Ridgeback could be confused as a 'pit' either, but I'm not the lady who threw hysterics about the evil 'pit bull' that was really a Ridgeback. Same goes for the two Pugs owned by a friend of mine. I honestly don't understand how a passerby could think that they were 'pit bulls', but hey, who knows? Kory Nelson, the man who originated the ban in Denver, can't correctly identify one of the three breeds either. I wonder how he proposes to enforce the law.
  
  After seeing the terribly bred Goldens and other fad breeds being pumped out by commercial breeders these days, I would never want one. Recently my neighbors dumped thier one year old Golden for being aggressive. Very stable dog, hmm?
  
  Perhaps you should read a little about the search and rescue Amstaffs who were used after the Colombia disaster by NASA, or one of the many Therapy and Service Amstaffs and APBTs out there. In Washington, there are currently two APBTs empoyed as police dogs.
  
  Any good dog owner would realize that when one breed is banned, other will followed. 93 breeds are banned in Italy. Corgis and Border Collies are among them. My dog, who is a quarter German Shepherd, is now threatened by a proposed ban in Chicago. If passed, she could be legally taken from me and euthanized, simply because she resembled a GSD to a certain degree. She is also mixed with Schipperke and Lab, but I doubt that would matter.
  
  If you would like to talk to some REAL experts on the breeds, just ask. And don't beleive everything the media tells you.

  By  Janine, at 3:02 PM, November 29, 2005  

  ---

• Any dog can be a vicious creature, it is not limited to just certain breeds. Why? Breeding and training.
  
  Interbreeding continuously (basically mom and son, daughter and father) can produce unwanted traist, just like when humans interbreed. You see traits that shouldn't be there, people who enjoy attacking living creatures and killing. It's just the same thing with dogs. People who breed irresponsibly produce animals that show these undesirable traits.
  
  Training can make a hyper, dangerous animal into a well behaved, well mannered dog. Training is essential for any breed of dog, considered dangerous or not. Socialization is also needed so that the dogs learns how to interact with other dogs and this should start as soon as possible (trainers now say to start training at around 8-10 weeks of age, not 6 months).
  
  Thing is, the three main breeds consider "pit bulls" are essentially excellent with children and are non-human aggressive. These dogs were bred to be dog aggressive, not human. Think about being a professional dog fighter breeder, would you want a dog that attacks your audience and leaves the dog alone? No, you want an animal that is pretty good with humans but will attack other dogs. That is the basis of training and breeding for these types of dogs. Besides, Shar-Peis, Airedales, Akitas, Mastiffs, and almost every other breed has been used in the fighting ring from one time to another.
  
  I have worked with all these dogs professionally. My guess is you could not tell the differnece. Ridgeback? are you off? you are kidding right?
  
  Ridgebacks (Rhodesian, not Thais) were once employed as lion hunters. These dogs had to be big enough with enough power to take down a full grown, male lion. Several lines have been bred from this dangerous job but it can still exist. In some cases where people are ignorant and see this "large dog with short hair" attack someone can mistake this for a large "pit bull." Scar, a Ridgeback who used to live near me, would sometimes get out and run at us. He was just saying hello but to any passerby, it might look like a "large, slightly short faced, short haired, powerful dog" was trying to attack. Kinda sounds like a "pit bull," doesn't it? Mastiffs were once trained to charge into battle with their owners and rip people apart and scare the prisoners. Shar-Peis were once fighting animals. Bulldogs were once fighters and look at them now. Good breeding has not completely wiped out the agressive tendency but it has helped. It has worked for several of the "pit bull" lines.
  
  You want stats on dog attacks on people I know? Two yellow Labs (the "ideal family pet") attacked my friend standing still because they were running loose. The owner of the animals did not claim they were his until my friend received all of the shots for rabies (about four weeks later). I was attacked by a German Pointer because I was stupid and walked up behind her to pet her. A German Shepherd and Dalmatian attacked my other friend on his bike after getting out. My other friend was attacked by a Dalmatian or a type of mutt you wouldn't expect to attack in front of a library because the poor thing was tied up. My goat was attacked by a Jack Russell. My great-grandmother's Mini Schnauzer snapped at my brother. My black Lab has ran me over several times. My cousin's Golden had bitten me quite a bit and a couple of Chis I've petsitted have tried to attack me. My brother is more of a danger to himself than any dog. Notice how none of these are "pit bulls"?
  
  There was a recent attack near my home town where a pack of "pit bull/Rott" crosses (one was white which I'm still at a loss on how that happened as no Rott "pit bull" cross could be white) attacked and killed a woman outside her home. The police are still wondering how the dogs got out. It's very clear to me that the dogs jumped the fence of their pen (nothing on top to stop them, electric fencing underground to keep them from digging out), jumped the three foot fence around the property, and went on their merry way. These dogs have gotten out in the past too. Irresponsibility right there. The owner should've had something to keep the dogs inside on top. I mean, we have sheep at the farm who jump the fence (about eight to nine feet tall) of the pen where we exercise them and we put a net across the top to keep them in and it works. It's not that hard.
  
  Funny thing is, where I live, in two parts of town, the APBT is the most popular pet. Also, if looks are everything, then why is Sam, the ugliest dog in the nation, one of the most loved? He is quite repulsive in appearance but he was said to have a wonderful personality. Maybe we should ban dogs just by their looks and not by their personality.
  
  My teacher has a saying when I said my dog wouldn't attack my goat (ironically, the goat attacked the dog). "Does that dog have teeth? Then he can bite."

  By  RJ, at 5:51 PM, November 29, 2005  

  ---

• Well I don't know about all these breeds. I only know that my dog, which is a shar-pei/pit bull mix, is friendly with kids and adults. She does have an aggressive nature with small animals though. Actually, I'm not even sure she has pit bull in her at all. The Vet said he wasn't sure. But she looks like a pit and that's all people see.
  
  The problem is, as it always is, that people overreact to things. So I'm concerned about all these reports of dog maulings in the news. They almost always say it was a pit bull. That means that some politician is going to want to get his/her name in the news for having introduced some legislation that outlaws pit bulls. And as was earlier posted, it will expand from there to include many other dogs too. Then it will lead to other nonsense laws which restrict all dogs in some way or another.
  
  Remember from the article where the man who's son was attacked said "they should undergo yearly obedience training and be destroyed if they fail?" What does that mean? What kind of obedience? Destroyed if they fail? Talk about exam anxiety!
  
  I don't know which breed is the most dangerous. I just don't want stupid laws that are an overreaction to a real problem. And by the way, most of those dog maulings I've seen on the news were from dogs that had undesirable owners. Case in point: the lady that was killed in San Francisco a few years ago. The owners had "adopted" a man in prison. The dogs in question were "Presa Canarios," whatever that is. But guess what they look like? Here's the full story: http://www.courttv.com/trials/dogmaul/
  
  Now let's find a way to let the public know which dogs are dangerous and what laws will fix the problem without restricting the rest of us.
  
  Jeff F

  By  Jeff F, at 12:43 AM, December 01, 2005  

  ---

• I think if they do that to pit bulls they should do it to cha wawas to. My 2 year old male pit that isn't fixed was attacked by two of those little dogs and my mother my mother not even the dogs owner had to call his name and he came to her. Oh and did I mention my pit didn't even growl; at those dogs he simply retrearted. I think they should look a the broader picture of what they are trying to prevent. If its dog attacks and aggresive dogs they should look at every breed and poll every vet to see what breed of dog to put in this law. My vet will say shes been bit by 3 chawawas and never a pit or rot. STAND UP and make them do there homework!!!!!Before they take you rbeloved dog away!!!!!!!!!!

  By  Luvely20, at 2:59 AM, December 11, 2005  

  ---

• I agree! Owner's of Pitt Bulls should have strict rules to be able to keep them. I would prefer that they were not in my neighborhood at all. The breed is known to snap at any time for no apparent reason, even when its owner has never mistreated the dog. That’s what’s so scary.
  
  If it's not the breed, as some would argue, then how does a 10 year old child just walking down the street minding her own business, get attached by a Pitt Bull that jumps through its owner's screened door, runs across and down the street at the sight of her and tears the crap out of hear. This was this year on Thanksgiving Day 2005 at the hospital emegency room where I witnessed this.
  
  The owner came to talk to the victim’s parents and said to them the same thing all blind Pitt Bull Lovers say, " I don't know what could have happened, he's never done this before. He's usually really sweet, gentle and playful!"
  
  I can't wait until these laws get passed in my city.

  By  Kathy, at 7:49 AM, December 19, 2005  

  ---

• To the above poster, there are other breeds that attack people, not just the "pit bulls." The only reason why more large dog attacks are dangerous is just because of size. Large dogs have more mass which makes it easier to knock people over. They also have larger jaws which can clamp on and rip much better than small dogs. Smaller dogs are actually more prone to biting because of their overbreeding. They become mean tempered, are pampered too much, or not trained well. With a large dog, you have to train it to obey or you can't control it. By just destroying "pit bulls," yes, we eliminate one breed from the country. Then what? "Oh, Labradors and German Shepherds are attacking now. We'll have to get rid of them." And so on and so forth, until the only breeds available are the Toy Poodles, Havanese, and other tiny breeds that can kill as well (a Pomeranian suffocated a toddler when it laid on his face). Besides, there are other attacks and deaths by other dogs. Some lady was attacked by a pack of Poodles. My friend was attacked by a Dalmatian. I never been attacked by a "pit bull" nor have anyone else that I know of. Besides, by nature, these breeds of dogs are required to be good with children and people but some have trouble accepting other dogs. If you want real info on these breeds, e-mail any responsible breeder of American Staffordshires, Staffordshires, or American Pit Bull Terriers (not the low, 100 lbs dogs, the taller, more athelic looking ones) and ask on statistics of their dogs attacks (try finding the AKC Champions bloodlines and breeders). I'm sure it would be close to null. Any dog (be it AmStaff, Lab, or Poodle) known to show aggression is immediately cut from the breeding program and is not allowed to show. This is real breeding, not this "throw two dogs together and sell whatever puppies they produce." This is where people get these dogs that will attack anything at the slightest notion.
  
  I think I've got a small solution to any dog problem: Basic responsibility. Since many people are attacked by dogs running loose, this should made law for all owners. If you are going to be gone for just four hours, leave your dog in the house (unless a young puppy) with the doors locked. If you have a dog door, then that's fine but try to keep it locked on short trips. If you will be gone for more than 4 hours or have a puppy who isn't housebroken completely, leave your dog in the backyard with all the gates locked or in the house with someone to check on him or her. Make sure the dog has something to do, shelter, and fresh water. If your dog is getting out, refill all holes with rocks, try locking the gates again, and make sure there are no loose boards. If they are still getting out and there are no holes, no loose boards, or the gate is still locked, try building a kennel for the dog. A large dog should get no less than 200 square feet and the fence should be at least six feet high. If your dog is very strong, skip the chain link and get yourself the welded metal panels used for livestock. Put rocks or electric fencing under the fence to discourage digging. Try putting the kennel under a tree to keep it shady in the summer. Provide fresh water, toys, and a dog house to keep him or her entertained. Make sure all gates are locked before you leave. Have someone check up on them once during the day to make sure they're still safely inside. If they are still getting out and nothing seems to be out of place, then they are jumping the fence. Trust me, Shiba Inus are half the size of a Labrador and can jump six feet from a stand still and sit on a fence. Put a netting over the top of the kennel (something thick but that lets sunlight through, you could use a tarp if needed). It's just that simple.

  By  RJ, at 7:48 PM, December 22, 2005  

  ---

• The significant point behind these statistics is that they can SNAP at anytime(Mostly likely if the owner is cruel to the dog - But I don't know the owner). You never know when it's going to happen. Any dog can snap but, these breeds attacks are more likely to be fatal.
  
  Note that in the information below that only Rottweilers and Pit Bulls are referenced.
  
  Rottweiler and Pit Bull lovers
  and breeders are going to be bias.
  
  People who owns these dogs are getting sued for lots of money for deaths in their family and permanent injuries. These statistics are what's really happening or has happened in the last several years.
  
  People who owns these dogs should have a thorough investigation on them to ensure they are responsible owners. They should have them registered in the city, county or state in which they live. If another breed happens to come out as being known for fatalities due to unprovoked attacks then that breed should also be targeted. But until then, the focus is on the Pit Bull and rightfully should be.
  
  Dog bite & attack statistics
  
  In 2001, an estimated 68 million dogs were pets in the United States.
  
  In 2001, an estimated 368,245 victims were treated for dog bite related injuries.
  
  In 2001, children ages 5-9 had the highest dog-related injuries.
  
  In 2001, an estimated 42% of dog bites (or 154,625) occurred in children age 14 and younger.
  
  Approximately 7.9% of dog bites (or 16,476) were work-related.
  
  For children 4 years and under, 64.9% of injuries were to the head/neck.
  
  For those 15 and older, 86.2% of injuries from dog attacks were to the extremities.
  
  
  From 1979 through 1996, dog attacks resulted in more than 300 human dog-bite related deaths in the United States. Most of the victims were children.
  
  In 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died as a result of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997, and 9 in 1998). Of these, 19 were young children between zero and 11 years of age, and 8 were older children and adults between 17 and 87 years of age.
  
  Of the 27 people who died as a result of dog bite attacks in 1997 and 1998, 67 percent (18) involved unrestrained dogs on the owner's property; 19 percent (5) involved unrestrained dogs off the owner's property; 11 percent (3) involved restrained dogs on the owner's property; and 4 percent (1) involved a restrained dog off the owner's property.
  
  60 percent of the fatal dog bite attacks by unrestrained dogs that occurred off the owner's property in 1997 and 1998 involved attacks by more than one dog.
  
  17 states accounted for the 27 dog bite fatalities that occurred in 1997 and 1998. They were: California (4 deaths); Georgia and North Carolina (3 deaths each); Kansas, Texas, and Wisconsin (2 deaths each); and Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, South Dakota, and Tennessee (1 death each).
  
  Rottweilers and Pit Bulls were involved in 60 percent of the 27 dog bite fatalities that occurred in 1997 and 1998. Rottweilers were involved in 10 deaths, and Pit Bulls were involved in 6.
  
  From 1979 through 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human dog bite related deaths. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50 percent of these deaths.
  
  Between 1979 and 1998, 58 percent of human deaths involved attacks by unrestrained dogs who were on their owner's property at the time of the attack.
  
  http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/dogbite-statistics.html
  
  Also reported in:
  http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
  Interesting chart in this one.
  Pure Breed Pit Bull Types 66 fatalities from 1979-1998
  Rottweilers - 39 from 1979-1998
  
  
  CDC Study
  
  The Centers for Disease Control study dog bite incidents, including the types of dogs most likely to bite. The breeds that the CDC considers highest risk are pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, Huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, Chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas.
  The median age of patients bitten was 15 years, with children, especially boys aged 5 to 9 years, having the highest incidence rate
  The odds that a bite victim will be a child are 3.2 to 1. (CDC.)
  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.
  Severe injuries occur almost exclusively in children less than 10 years of age.
  The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place.
  The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend.
  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%).
  http://www.nafacares.org/Dog%20Stuff/dog_bite_statistics.htm

  By  Kathy, at 7:36 AM, December 28, 2005  

  ---

• I agree there should be laws. My little 14 pound family dogs died protecting my 11 year old daughter when a pitt came through our own privacy fence in our own backyard. Who should take responsibility on this issue? Now I have kids who are afraid to go outside.

  By  Anonymous, at 6:04 AM, December 29, 2005  

  ---

• Those are some excellent stats and data points but it denies the fact that "pit bulls" are the most dangerous dog breeds. It points out that Rotts are. Also, it says that most attacks are by unrestrained dogs in the house. More than likely, the dog attacked a child, hm? The thing it refuses to mention if it is the dog's fault or if the child was left unsupervised. No child should be left unsupervised with a dog. The dog will correct a child's mistake by biting the face as that is how a dog corrects those under it. I've been bitten in the face by a dog for doing wrong.
  
  The other problem it mentioned was dogs in packs roaming. By nature, "pit bulls" do poorly with other animals unless raised together. Dogs should be separated when they are left alone for long periods of time. They get into more trouble together as dogs are intelligent and can think of how to escape and what not to do.
  
  The thing is, it's the owner's responsibilty to have their dogs contained. If they are not, then the owner should fall responsible for the attack, not just the dog.
  
  There are other stories that never make it into the news anyways. A child was sitting outside, playing in her backyard when a APBT leapt the fence after getting out. It was a rescued fighter who was old and could escape frequently. The mother and child screamed as it leapt at the kid.
  
  The APBT flew over the child and landed on a rattlesnake that bit the dog. It snapped and shook the snake until it died while the mother grabbed her kid away from the APBT.
  
  Did you think the dog was going to attack the kid? If that had been any other breed of dog, would you still think the dog would attack the kid? Probably not. This is why there is so much fear out of a breed that just needs the right owner to train it.
  
  The "pit bull" is not a dog for someone who has never owned a dog. A Chihuahua is not a dog for someone who wants a running companion. A Border Collie is not a dog for someone who wishes to spend no time with it. It takes responsibility to own a dog and many owners sometimes do not take the time to consider that. People need to pick a dog that they can handle, not just one that supposed to "guard the house and home." By nature, those types of dogs are usually harder to train because of their size.
  
  Besides, when you go to get to a new puppy to bring home from a breeder, ask about the parents. Try to get the breeder to let you interact with one or both (try to at least get the mother. If the mother is not available for a strange reason, try another breeder as the puppies might be from a mill or stolen). If either one shows some sort of aggression towards you or someone else, then that is not the breeder for you. Also ask the breeder what the ideal breed should be like, in temperament and health. If they answer in a way you don't like or you don't like the answer, try another breeder. But do research first people. Kathy did research and that's fine and dandy but it doesn't cover other breeds. It also shows the span to be growing, from about 15 deaths per year to 27. And yet this many people die as a result of alcohol per day. This is not a real thing to control, it is impossible to control your dog at all times. My dog has bit someone because she's a pig and wanted the food from the guy's hands. But no one will think of banning Labs because of their popularity.
  
  Besides, all sharks are considered dangerous to people who are ignorant of that there are more types of sharks than the Great White. The Whale Shark and Basking Shark have never bitten anyone because they do not care for messing with people. They eat krill yet are huge.
  
  Everytime a person gets out of bed, they accept the risks of what the day will bring. If you cannot accept the fact that you might die today, then stay in bed. There are other dangers besides "pit bulls" that exist that we can control, like smoking or alcohol. Dogs are something that will forever be in nature's category or the things we can't control. Accept it.

  By  RJ, at 11:14 AM, December 29, 2005  

  ---

• Children should be valued more so than dogs. Children should be able to run free and play without worring about dogs attacking them. The DOGS (Pitt Bull and Rotts and any other breed with these high fatality statistics) should be tied up and muzzled. The law does hold the owners responsible but it's not working so well so it is being taken a step further. If Shitzus are known to be violent and mean, I would not have purchased one just to be on the safe side because I have children I cherish more than anything. I would never take that chance.
  
  Your comment RJ...
  
  The "pit bull" is not a dog for someone who has never owned a dog.
  
  True. But there are a lot of irresponsible people getting these dogs knowing the background. WHY? This is why these people need to be investigated and registered. Some people have no business having these dogs but they get them anyway.
  
  RJ, your comment...
  
  Kathy did research and that's fine and dandy but it doesn't cover other breeds. It also shows the span to be growing, from about 15 deaths per year to 27. And yet this many people die as a result of alcohol per day.
  
  Did you read the part where I included
  
  http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
  Interesting chart in this one.
  
  They show all breeds that have significant fatalitiy rates in a chart form. We are not discussing alcohol, just dogs. People who drink in excess are killing themselves with alcohol not other people unless thay drink and drive and there are laws for that also, again because of irresponsibility. There should also be laws to protect people against breeds that have been statistically known to be vicious.
  
  RJ, sharks aren't pets. There are some dangers we can control and some we cannot. The vicious dogs danger we can.

  By  Kathy, at 5:27 AM, December 30, 2005  

  ---

• But from the chart, "pit bull" attacks are going down, not up. And whose to say it was a "pit bull?" Many Border Collies, Ridgebacks, Labs, Dobermans, and other various breeds have attacked people and been called "pits." Besides, the original "pit bull" is about three or four breeds, not just one. Nowadays, it can include the APBT, AmStaff, Staffies, Dogos, Bull Terriers, Presa Canarios, Filas, and sometimes others. On average, that puts them in fifth place for the number of attacks.
  
  Your reference even said that the numbers may be off as even experts disagree on a dog's breed and "DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation of aggression (pg. 3). Well isn't that a kick to the pants. A Ridegback, which is never mentioned, could be the culprit but identified as a "pit." It even goes to say that they used the media for many cases which can be extremely wrong at times. A newsreporter called a Border Collie a "pit" when it was lose in the zoo. It even says that "because Rott popularity has soared, so have Rott related deaths" (pg.4). You'll always have dog attacks that turn fatal. There isn't any data on deaths before the 1980's on "pits." It even goes to say a Yorkie and Dachshunds have killed people and that Great Danes were responsible for several deaths. Should we ban them as well? No, that's just stupid. There isn't even a good way to enact the breed bans as people would need to have pedigree and DNA testing which will just cost maybe a billion dollars for every single dog in the nation. Whose going to pay for it? The regular people. It even reports that law enforcement cannot effectively follow a breed ban because sometimes, a dog may look like a "pit" or similar "dangerous dog" but yet, it is not. Did you read that last two pages? It's very informative on why a breed ban will not work.
  
  Besides, the number of Saint Bernard attacks have gone up while others have seemingly gone down. Besides, where I'm from, Labs and Goldens are more dangerous than German Shepherds and Rotts because there are more of them. There are more of the "pit bulls" than Labs or Goldens or any other dog for that matter in the U.S. Why? People are scared to register them for the predujice and so, they don't.
  
  Tying a dog up is one of the reasons why dogs attack. They find that their area is theirs and any strange person that steps into it is an intruder that must be gotten rid of. Just tying an animal up isn't going to do any good, even muzzled. Claws are effective weapons as well as weight. Dogs need to learn that a human is the alpha and to not attack unless it is absolutely necessary. By tying them up, you decrease any human interaction with them and decrease any need for someone to train them. That's just the most awful solution in any humane situation. People suffer trauma everyday for tying their dog up and suddenly finding that the poor thing hung itself while chasing a squirrel. Why make the dog suffer for the rest of its life for something another dog did?
  
  Well, people are stupid. What else can I say? I really believe that breeders should take their time to sell puppies and look into the people that are buying but, alas, many do not or cannot as your police record is not available over the Internet.
  
  I agree that people with dogs should be registered but it should be everyone, not just certain breeds. Then, people can get away with dog attacks by other dogs. My own city has a registration but it's not mandatory is part of the problem.
  
  There are other ways to deal with this problem that doesn't include killing off innocent animals. By just killing them coldheartedly, it makes us no better than the people who enjoy their pain in the fighting ring. For example, people need to exercise responsibility with their animals, any animal. I went babysitting one night and right as I walked in, there was a dog crate and a couple of dogs barking. The people had two breeding female Bull Terriers and one male. They had separated the two females into two different rooms and had separated the male and put him in the hall in the crate. It was such an incredibly smart thing to do that I paused a little. This was responsibilty. Instead of me having to deal with the kids and a male dog trying to get with the girls, I just had to deal with the kids. Another, I have to petsit a Golden Retriever who stays in a bathroom until I come to let her out. If she was kept in the backyard all day, people would call the police because she is a problem barker. Again, there is no abandonment and no killing to curve these behaviors.
  
  There is one state that is taking the step into the right direction. I forget which one though. It records the people who have had dogs attack other people on a web site for anyone to read. Dogs are also recorded, whether a "pit" or not. If someone spots a lose dog, all they have to do is look it up on the Internet and figure out if this dog has attacked anyone or not. It's simple and a good idea.
  
  Millions of dogs are injured because of humans. About a thousand humans are injured by dogs. Which is more dangerous, the dog or the human? There are other dangers besides the dogs, most we can deal with now. Like plastic bags. 25 kids a year die because of them because people are, once again, stupid. We can control that. Dogs we cannot. There will still be dog related deaths even if some breeds are killed off (besides, I'm more terrified of a sheep than of a "pit").

  By  RJ, at 5:00 PM, December 30, 2005  

  ---

• I am incredibly sorry for double posting but I found this out from one of your links, Kathy. By taking the Dog Attack quiz on www.dogbitelegalcenter.com, I found that the most likely dog to bite IS NOT the "pit bull." It is the German Shepherd.
  
  Your other resource, http://www.nafacares.org/Dog%20Stuff/dog_bite_statistics.htm, also noted the Pomeranian who killed the infant. I was wrong that the dog suffocated the kid but instead mauled the infant to death. You apparently did not also include the other facts the site stated which included:
  
  "Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner most often is responsible -- not the breed, and not the dog."
  
  "An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above)."
  
  "Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be likely to bite. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack."
  
  Here's some of my findings. At http://www.legallawhelp.com/safety_and_health/hazardous/dog_bites/dog_bite_fatalities.html, there are no sign of "pit bull" attacks at all. Rotts, a Chow, and two wolf-GSD hybrids were included, but not "pits." The Rotts mentioned had even attacked the woman they killed a month before the fatal attack. There's something wrong there. Boys were more likely to be attacked. Why? Boys play rougher, the dog gets excited, the dog accidently bites the child or boy plays rough, dog gets angry and bites in defense. The site even says that one attack was counted because a child walked into a neighbor's yard. If children should be valued higher than dogs then why don't people watch their children better? That attack could've been avoided if the parent had been watching their child as he wandered into the backyard where the dogs were chained up. Again, chaining doesn't help at all.
  
  From all the sites though, the percentage numbers changed which means there's a gap somewhere in the research. At http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=572, it points out that "The researchers also found that 10% of the dog bite attacks involved sleeping infants." People leave the dog and kid alone and the dog either mauls the child (as with the Pmoeranian) or accidentally sleeps on the child and either curshes it or suffocates it.
  
  There's even a site for mail carriers (http://www.postalmag.com/dogsattack.htm) where one carrier was attacked by a cat! Should cats be banned too? It even goes on several horrid stories on how some mail carrier killed a dog that did not attack by scaring it into the path of a truck. While it was an accident, I still find it horrid to see that kids found it awesome. This is a problem. Kids think they can do stuff to dogs with no repercussions. Then, when something does happen, the dog gets blamed. There's also one where a carrier shot a small dog dead when it rushed at him. Then there's another where one carrier poured antifreeze into a bowl for the dog who seemed to be trying to attack him but did no such thing. There's just all these horrid stories about people killing dogs in the most awful ways and then when someone gets killed by a dog, everyone goes ballistic? What kind of place is this? Sure, mail carriers should be able to protect themselves but they should only kill the dog if they are physically attacked or if the dog rushes out when the owner is not around. The sad thing is? There's only one mention of a "pit bull" but one of a Lab, a couple for Rotts, others for terrier and a Cocker Spaniel. And one cat!

  By  RJ, at 10:34 AM, December 31, 2005  

  ---

• There is a big difference between one death one specific breed and 40-60 deaths one specific breed. There is also a difference between a dog bite and a dog kill. Dogs bite, sure. But Pitt Bulls Kills! The numbers may go down now but they will go back up if we continue to allow them in the neiborhoods where children play.
  
  Your findings at...
  http://www.legallawhelp.com/safety_and_health/hazardous/dog_bites/dog_bite_fatalities.html
  
  Mentioned Rotts. Pitt Bulls are right behind them as number 2 with the most fatalities.
  
  Just because a boy plays rough, doesn't mean it's ok and it's his fault or it happened because he was playing to rough. Regardless, the death of a child is way too high of a price to pay for him playing rough.
  
  Your comment...
  "The researchers also found that 10% of the dog bite attacks involved sleeping infants." People leave the dog and kid alone and the dog either mauls the child (as with the Pmoeranian) or accidentally sleeps on the child and either curshes it or suffocates it.
  
  Again, These people need to be investigated to make sure they are responsible enough to have these dogs. I think they should also carry high insurance in case something does happened. Because they are getting sued you know.
  
  Your comment...
  There's even a site for mail carriers (http://www.postalmag.com/dogsattack.htm) where one carrier was attacked by a cat! Should cats be banned too?
  
  Again,
  you are talking about attacks and bites versus death.
  
  People who are killing dogs are getting punished. If a person is rushed at by a Rott or a Pitt Bull, they may not survive the attack to kill the dog.
  
  I say, kill it if it looks at you funny!

  By  Kathy, at 5:30 PM, January 06, 2006  

  ---

• "Pit bull" is not one specific breed. It is not like just Rottweilers, or just Saint Bernards. It is not even a breed of dog. It is more commonly three breeds and mixed breeds (AmStaff, Staffie, APBT, mixes that just look like them) that can escalate into seven at times, depending on the area and how people view dogs.
  
  Other dogs kill as well, just not "pits." By the way you're making it out, it sounds like all deaths are attributed to "pits" which is not the case. The reason why "pit bulls" and other large dogs can kill is because of their larger size and mass as well as they have larger jaws. I'm not saying that they don't kill. I'm saying that any dog can kill if provoked the right way. Anything can provoke a mentally unstable dog, especially if you stare them in the eyes. It is a challenge and the dog will take you up on it. Not every dog that attacks and kills is a "pit bull" and not every friendly dog is a Lab. Labs are becoming mentally unstable animals because of the continous interbreeding. I've seen a very unpleasant Parson Russell that attacked my goat for no other reason than the goat ran. I know the goat really shouldn't have run but I cannot control the goat.
  
  There is still a matter of parental responsibility that should be taken into context. Parents should teach their children not to play with strange dogs or dogs in backyards without the parent and owner around. Kids should not wander into other people's backyards in the first place. Parents should not leave their children alone with a dog at any time. Parents should teach their children what not to do with a dog and the warning signs that tell a dog is annoyed or is getting too excited. Parents should look into breeds and breeders before getting a dog for their children. But sadly, many people nowadays try to find the easy way out and blame the owners of the dogs for things they could not control but that the parents could. Boys playing rough is a reason why more boys than girls are attacked. Certain older dogs will not stand for such rough play and will bite, boy or dog. I've seen an old Golden bite a Westie for being to enthutiastic and that same Westie snap at a Golden puppy for becoming too rough. Dogs do not differentiate between children and puppies as they are considered "part of the pack" and therfore are more likely to correct them by biting to tell them to stop. Girls do not often engage in incredibly rough play and therefore are not bitten as much by the family dog.
  
  I do believe that vicious and aggressive dogs should not be allowed in neighborhoods but by just banning a "breed" of dog, it will not effectively solve a problem. Breed bans cost billions of dollars to enact and people really don't have the money to support such a large, unnecessary fund. Sure, we ban dogs that maybe considered "pit bulls" but we've done nothing to really solve the problem that any dog can be dangerous or aggressive. I, myself, find certain terriers quite aggressive but I do not go waving a banner saying that they should be banned. My aunt's dog is a Westie and is incredibly sweet. To better control dangerous dogs, neighborhoods should remove owners with dogs that have caused problems that can be proven that people find threatening or aggressive behavior without being provoked.
  
  Again, These people need to be investigated to make sure they are responsible enough to have these dogs. I think they should also carry high insurance in case something does happened. Because they are getting sued you know.
  
  
  It never said that the people owned "pit bulls." It just said that 10% of infants are attcked by dogs while they are sleeping. That would mean that everyone who owns a dog would need to carry insurance but I cannot fathom who is suing you for your own dog accidentally killing your own child. Besides, one of your references (dogbitelegalcenter, in the quiz) said it is very unwise for people to carry liability insurance on their dog. I do not understand the reason why but I will trust them on this matter.
  
  From your last comment, I should kill every Chihuahua I have encountered then and Sam the Ugliest Dog (may he rest in peace) should've been shot to death when he was born. I think that is a very unfair way to judge anything. be it dog or human or any other creature. It's like shooting people who flick you off in the road; the only person who ends up paying is you. People can sue you for killing their dog without any good reason. You have no proof that he threatened you if he just gave you a funny look. He has to attempt an attack or attack you before legal action can be taken against him. Trust me, people do freak out when their faithful companion is shot by another person for no other reason than "he just looked at me funny."

  By  RJ, at 9:44 PM, January 06, 2006  

  ---

• Sure, Mastiffs have killed, German Shepards have killed,and st. Bernards, once, maybe twice, NOT 40-60 times like the Pitts and Rotts. There is a big difference.
  
  You compare people flicking other people off to a Pitt or Rott ready to attack. Flicking someone off isn't likely to kill someone unless he is totally appauled that he can't keep his eyes on the road at mere astonishement of the act that he runs his car off the road. A pitt or Rott ready to attack most likely will and most likely to kill.
  
  Believe me, if a Pitt Bull or Rott came toward me, as long as I feared for my life and most likely it would be believed without a doubt, I could kill that dog and no one would bat an eye. Except for you!
  
  The quiz question was...
  
  When you own a dog, you MUST carry special insurance incase your dog bites someone.
  
  
  The quiz answer said that there was no need because a general liability isurance or home owners insurance would cover it. But people who rent don't have home owners insurance and most only have insurance to cover personal belongings insurance. They should carry general liability insurance if they own a known vicious dog.
  
  If a Chihuahua charged at you and you killed it, you would be a laughing stock. You would do better to slap it in the chops. Save yourself the embarrassment.
  
  Like I said, dogs bite, but pitt bulls kill.

  By  Kathy, at 8:15 PM, January 09, 2006  

  ---

• The CDC reported about 5 deaths belonging to Saint Bernards, not just one or two. There are more deaths contributed to "pit bulls" because of their history that many people believe they make good guard dogs and the fact that many are ill-bred. Many ill-bred dogs are vicious animals, be it a "pit" or Lab. Their history is one of fighting but many lines have tuned down this instinct like Mastiffs, Shar-Peis, Bulldogs, and other Terrier breeds. Many people don't look into breeders and find themselves with a dangerous creature. My aunt bought a Bulldog one time and it grew huge. She immediately claimed it was a "pit bull" and got rid of him but it was more of an American Bulldog than a "pit." Many people cannot tell the difference between one breed and another so who’s to say it was a "pit" or not? Even experts disagree on breeds so how can regular people with no experience in telling breeds apart claim it was a "pit" when it was most definitely a Blue Lacy Dog or a Ridgeback. Who really knows how many attacks on the CDC chart were actually done by a "pit?" No one knows as it reports that some attacks were attributed to "pits" when it possibly wasn't.
  
  I'm just making an example. If people were courteous enough, we wouldn't have these awful problems. There are accidents that happen because of ill-mannered people, just like attacks from ill-mannered dogs happen.
  
  The liability insurance, sure, all people should own it. But some insurances don't cover certain breeds or any dog at all. Any known vicious dog was well written, though I'm probably taking it in another context. "Any known vicious" dog should be taken care of, whether it is a Chihuahua or a “pit bull.”
  
  I was looking at the CDC chart and noticed that the numbers don’t add up in the total at the end of every span of years. Some are off by one or off by nearly 3 with no explanation as to why the numbers are skewed. It really says these charts are not very reliable sources. Though the CDC also says that there really is no difference in fatalities since dogs have been bred into existence, dog bites, however, are raising, not deaths. Chaining also does no help as dogs are 2.8 times more likely to attack than an unchained dog. It is almost impossible to tell dog genomes apart as well according to a study as a terrier’s genomes would be incredibly similar, if not the same, to its toy counterpart. CDC also claims that many attacks and deaths were because of irresponsible owners or because of the way the dog was treated. Scientifically, breed bans are vague, require the funding to do so, and are based on physical descriptions only (which means that Ridgebacks, American Bulldogs, Blue Lacies, etc. are banned for looking like they do).
  
  I would like to ask how you how you would enforce a breed ban, Kathy, as it would take nearly 10 years to DNA test all the dogs in the country (yes, you must test them all as it is the only way to prove it is a “pit”), cost billions of tax dollars that could be used for school, figure out what to do with crossbred dogs who have very little “pit” in them, and then, how to enforce it so that everyone will obey. Not everyone is going to allow their pet to be killed just because it is a certain type. It’s racism in its category, why not kill all of one “race” just because they are statistically more likely to damage or kill someone than another? Many people are smuggling their dogs out and moving out of the cities that enact these bans just to protect their loved ones. This is not what many cities need.
  
  A more accurate way to curve behaviors is to have mandatory training for ALL and ANY dog wishing to be a resident of a city. A seminar for people once a year on how to protect yourself from a dog, what to do when you are attacked, and how to protect others from dogs is also a good idea. I still think parents should teach their children common courtesy with strange dogs and anyone (kids are out of hand these days). It should be the parents job to teach their kids how what to do when a dog attacks them. Parents also should watch their children when they are around dogs or outside playing.
  
  Tell that to the mailman who shot the little black dog dead when it ran up to him while his owner was outside watching. I’ve had Chihuahuas bring me to tears because they were so badly behaved and attempted to bite my hand when I was younger. I don’t care if I’m a laughing stock; those dogs can kill just like any other. I will defend myself or anyone else if a dog attacks, be it Chihuahua or a giant Mastiff. Sometimes slapping a dog does nothing but angers it more and causes it to attack again. If I have to kill it to make it stop, then I will regret doing it but will. The only larger dog I’ve had that physically harmed me were three Labs (two my own), a German Shepherd/ACD cross, and a German Pointer.
  
  Must you always use that phrase? Yes, “pit bulls” kill. But so does every other dog breed in the world. Their numbers may be higher but that can be attributed to the fact that many dogs are classified wrongly, there are three to seven breeds involved in the “pit bull,” and people cannot tell the difference between an Australian Cattle Dog and a “pit.” Just like Corgis are considered dangerous creatures in Italy.

  By  RJ, at 8:11 PM, January 10, 2006  

  ---

• Maybe DNA testing for specific dog types. Not all dogs, only the breeds that are considered vicious.
  
  For all dogs would be ridiculous as well as unnecessarily costly. Breeders should be responsible for this and responsible for registering them before they are sold. People who buy them should present papers from the breeder proving the DNA testing was done, then be able to register them if things check out ok. And only out of residental areas.
  
  I don't believe in mandatory training for all breeds. Just Pitts and Rotts, and I still do not want them in my neighborhood.
  
  People with these dogs should move out of the city. If there is a ban on them and they don't want their dogs taken it's a very good decision and responsible decision on their part.
  
  Kids are mischevious. You can tell them to stay away from a dog but children are trusting and sweet and innocent when it comes to wanting to pet or play with an animal. They could never imagine a dog could or would kill. So when they approach a Pitt or Rott it's usually innocent on the childs part. We cannot ban children but we can ban the dogs.
  
  Parents can watch their children all day long around a dog. If that dog is vicious (Pitts and Rotts), it will take only a split second for that dog to attack and there is nothing that parent can do.
  
  Like I said before, I've witnessed a girl in the emergency room after she was just attacked by a Pitt Bull, just walking down the street. Minding her own business, the dog jumped out of the screened door and ran down the street to attack her. She wasn't even near the dog. In the news, not too long ago, a woman was walking to her door in an apartment complex and two Pitt Bulls attacked and killed her. Many of these stories have been in the news in the last 10 years.
  
  Seems that you've been attacked quit a bit. That should tell you something about your character.
  
  Now, what was it you were saying about the children?

  By  Kathy, at 7:45 AM, January 11, 2006  

  ---

• I would like DNA testing to be for every dog as sometimes, the breeder isn't the best. Many people still buy out of puppy mills or backyard breeders that "give" papers but they are not correct. Puppies in one litter may have more than one father and, if the breeder didn't see the dog across the street come in and check her in heat dog, they may end up with a few purebred puppies and a few crosses without even realizing it. DNA testing should eliminate any and all suspisions and can also be used to find agressive blood lines. Aggressive dogs who have sired puppies can be spotted and then they can find the blood lines that sired and figure out if these puppies are aggressive as well.
  
  I believe that if all dogs were trained, we wouldn't have as many problems as we do now. My own dog is not the best knowledgable dog in the world in terms of tricks but she listens if I call her name. Many dogs don't even look back when their owners yell at them, much less stop. People at the farm I keep animals at bring dogs up who don't obey to run lambs and goats. I was terrified when one dog started attacking my goat's legs with his teeth and immediately chased him down. The girl was even yelling and he didn't stop. It was a terrier mix, most likely part Glenn of Imaal. He was a good runner and didn't break the skin but he didn't listen to any command.
  
  What's funny is there's an elementary school about 20 miles from where I live where a teacher brings her dog out to the school everyday and he watches over recess. All the children love the dog except one. He's a fairly good sized dog, looks like a German Shepherd cross (kinda weird since their school's mascot is a hound), never had any accidents with the kids or adults in the five years he's been there. The mother wants him away from the school because her daughter is terrified of the "big, scary dog." I can understand if the dog is aggressive with the children, roams the halls, some kids are allergic, or has attacked someone but he hasn't or no one has complained until now. He stays outside with the kids at recess and the teachers, and is put in during the day in the teacher's room when there is no recess. He is their mascot and they use the dog to encourage children to learn and do well in school (playdate with the dog if you get good grades). He was also used to have the kids' picture taken with Santa. This is the only incident they've had where one child is scared of a dog for no other reason than he's a big dog. There's a problem there that needs to be addressed that the big dog that plays with the kids is not supposed to be scary.
  
  Parents watching their children all day long isn't very apparent when 10% of fatalities are caused by dogs mauling infants or sleeping on them. Close the door to the kid's room. Shibas can jump 6 foot tall fences from a standstill, a 4 foot tall crib doesn't stand much of a chance.
  
  My friend was riding his bike and was attacked for no real reason by a German Shepherd and Dalmatian duo. The dogs escaped the fence and rushed at him. They knocked him down and his mother had to run out and throw the bike at the dogs to get them away. That's pretty messed up (most likely, the Dalmatian was from the "Dalmatian Puppy Craze" after 101 Dalmatians where the population soared and inbereeding occured) when a Dalmatian, the brave and loyal fireman dog, attacks.
  
  All of my attacks were based on stupidity and I wasn't taught right. My two Labs attacked me for having food in my hand and near my persona when I was young, one Lab attacks me because he was excessively friendly, was in a puppy stage, and plays rough. The German Pointer attacked me because I walked up behind it to pet it on the back of a pick up (it was old too) and caught me in the nose. I admit that I was stupid for doing that (it also snapped at a smaller child and a couple members of the family before the father shot it). The ACD/German Shepherd cross was a shelter dog who liked my shoes too much (I think it was the leather) and kept biting my feet and clawing me. It was kinda funny really.
  
  If you mean that a lot of the children who live in America are out of hand then yes, they are. My grandmother works at a baby clothes store and a lot of people are just awful. One kid was eating chocolate and wiped his hands on many clothes and items, leaving awful stains. The mother was appalled when she was asked to pay for the stuff her son damaged. A couple of kids were running in the store and my grandmother told the woman that her children could get hurt. She ignored her and one of the kids ran straight in a clothes rack, splitting open a cut on her head. The mother said she was going to sue the store for the injury.
  
  A cafe in Chicago actually has a sign that claims that children must be behaved and have good manners to eat there because they have kids who run straight into display cases, start food fights, and keep screaming without any parental intervention. I don't care if their kid is "expressing himself," if I owned the cafe, I'd be telling them they would have to leave if their kid did not stop his destructive behavior and could not come back until they could control him. People, be it kids or adults, should not act this way in public. I can understand if the kid is tired and cranky but the people need to leave if they cannot quiet the child and apologize to the restaurant for the child's behavior. I know I would.

  By  RJ, at 6:14 PM, January 11, 2006  

  ---

• When Dalmations, German Shepards or Poms reach the 40 - 60 mark in death fatalities, then there should be laws to ban them as well.
  
  Until then, it's the Pitts and Rotts!

  By  Kathy, at 7:53 PM, January 17, 2006  

  ---

• If we're going about this scientifically and mathematically, breed bans don't account for anything. Going by the 2004 registrations for the four "pit bull" breeds in the AKC (AmStaff, Staffie, Bull and Mini Bull though the APBT can be substituted for both Bull Terriers), there were 4490 puppies registered that year. Assuming that about 15% do not become registered, that number jolts up to 5,099. Litter sizes average three puppies which means for every three puppies born, there is one mother. Since many people pick the best sires or their own, there are about two mothers to every father (by this, one father breeds two litters). For every unregistered puppy, there are ten other dogs that are either spayed, neutered, or not breeding. This number is around 53,465 by that time. Taking into account that there might've been 25 attacks in 2004, the percentage of the purebred dogs who manage to kill is so small, it shouldn't even be considered. What is this number? 0.047% of the purebred "pit bull" dogs in the U.S. attack people. This is not a significant number to base a breed ban on now is it? Less than one percent of the "pit bulls" in the country have killed a person based on 2004 statistics. If less than one percent of the cats in the U.S. attacked people, would we ban them? No. If less than one percent of kids who play video games suddenly turn violent, do we ban video games as well? No (but there are some that should be banned like a white supremacist game called "Ethnic Cleansing"). This is why people need to think before jumping on a bandwagon. If everyone thought about these kind of things through, we wouldn't have all the problems we have now. Yes, "pit bulls" have a significantally higher number than other breeds. But this number says nothing about the whole population of the breed.
  
  Just to illustrate another point, let's do Rotts as well with the same formula. There were 17,502 Rott puppies registered in 2004. By using the exact same formula as the "pit bull" breeds, we end up with a number around 236,797 Rotts in the U.S. in 2004. Assuming that there were 12 purebred Rott attacks in 2004, this brings a percentage of 0.005. This is an even less number than the others and, again, does not even begin to show the entire Rott population. Even with a higher number of deaths, we do not even see more than one percent of the population until we reach about 3000 deaths in one year. I doubt that will ever happen.

  By  RJ, at 7:05 PM, January 19, 2006  

  ---

• Three fatalities a year, every year for 10 years is good enough for me for a breed ban. And yes, we do ban or restrict video games and music CDs. We set ratings on them and make parents accountable. If a video game says for mature audiences only and a parent is the only person allowed to purchase it and the parent buys it for his/her child, then yes the parent is or should be held accountable. So should breeders and dog owners if a dog attacks a person. Then like anything else if it becomes a problem, get rid of the problem.

  By  Kathy, at 9:46 AM, January 23, 2006  

  ---

• I actually made a miscalculation in my above post. I assumed that there 25 deaths before. There were only six. Assuming that there were eight deaths in 2004, it brings the number to 0.015% which is less than Rotts. This is not a good assessment of the entire population though which gives little reason to ban something. It would be like the U.S. banning all Hispanics because, for some odd reason, they had a higher rate of murder than any other "race." The death rate of Alaskan Malamutes is about the same when comapred (0.0068%). You also have to assume that Akitas are sometimes misidentified to be Malamutes as well. No one does research is the problem. People who don't look at a whole and just jump to conclusions make them no better than people who believe everything that PETA says is true.
  
  Though I do have to say that many breeds are dangerous besides the "pit bull" types. There was an attack on a infant when a Dachshund ripped through the playpen netting, dragged the child out, and began to maul the infant. Luckily, the infant survived but it could've ended in death. Another was where a family bought their daughter a Dalmatian (who wasn't spayed, mind you, first mistake) and the Dalmatian ended up ripping open the girl's face after three weeks.
  
  Besides, people come up with crazy lawsuits that put game producers in danger of having to pay because people need to find someone to blame. Parents won't take responsibility anymore, especially if the game was geared towards E or T. I agree that restrictions should be put on owners, not dogs though, just like restrictions are put on certain material. Owners need to know that dogs are not going to read your mind and expect to know right from wrong. They need training.
  
  I do want to end on a small high note. Take the "Find the Pit Bull" quiz. http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html I was wrong the first two times and then just started clicking on dogs to find out what they were. This is what many people have trouble with when identifying the breed that attacked. It's not easy and I doubt many regular people who can't tell the difference between the Welsh and English Springer Spaniel at a glance can tell a "pit" from a Catahoula Leopard Dog.

  By  RJ, at 5:27 PM, January 23, 2006  

  ---

• Did a search on Pitt Bull Attack and this is what I got and then many, many, many, more...
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/wisc/20060207/lo_wisc/3243706
  
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/12/national/main694926.shtml
  
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/04/national/main556888.shtml
  
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/13/eveningnews/main536337.shtml
  
  http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20001203/HA_002.htm
  
  http://www.wral.com/News/1388435/detail.html
  
  http://www.newschannel5.com/content/news/11109.asp
  
  http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2005/May/24/LNlist2.htm
  
  http://www.katu.com/stories/76999.html
  
  http://www.thenewmexicochannel.com/news/4421693/detail.html
  
  http://www.sun-herald.com/NewsArchive2/051305/tp5np14.htm?date=051305&story=tp5np14.htm
  
  http://suburban.gmnews.com/news/2005/0512/Front_Page/027.html
  
  http://www.news4jax.com/news/4505193/detail.html
  
  http://www.news4jax.com/news/4505193/detail.html
  
  http://www.nbc5.com/news/4466937/detail.html
  
  http://www.nbc4i.com/news/4387377/detail.html
  
  http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050520/NEWS03/50520009
  
  http://www.ketv.com/news/4513023/detail.html
  
  Did a search on Dachshund attacks and this is what I got...
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/wisc/20060207/lo_wisc/3243706
  
  Did a search on Dalamtion Attacks and I got this...
  
  
  Did a search on Pomeranian attacks and got this...
  
  Did a search on Chihuahua attacks and got this
  
  http://www.wnbc.com/news/2384499/detail.html
  
  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/12/30/state/n085627S38.DTL
  
  little damage done here but it took 5 of them to do it.
  
  
  Did a search on Poodles and got this...
  
  
  Here is a site RJ right up your alley. It's a Pitt Bull Lovers Forum. These people have yet to have a family member bitten or killed by a Pitt Bull nor have they been sued for a fatal attack. YET!!!
  
  http://www.game-dog.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4099
  
  Happy Reading!!

  By  Kathy, at 11:16 AM, February 07, 2006  

  ---

• Your research isn't complete.
  
  http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/AlertPages/Letter2.htm
  http://www.adba.cc/p_pdetails.asp?fpid=68
  Has different attacks by different dogs, both websites have the same info which means this is widely accepted. This includes Bernese Mountain Dogs, Dalmatians, Siberian Huskies, ACDs, Paris Hilton's Chihuahua (who didn't see that coming, now?), Great Danes, Akitas, Golden Retrievers, and others.
  
  http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060207/WIRE/202070325/1117/news
  You know the lady in France that received the partial facial transplant? You know what breed of dog that ripped her face up while she slept? Labrador.
  
  Who took the Find the Pit Bull Quiz? Was it the dog you expected? How many of those dogs are not classified as "pit bulls" but yet look like one? Even experts are wrong. What does this say about normal people who've never seen a "pit bull" in their life? A lot. How many regular people can tell the difference between a Dogo and a white AmStaff? Not many, I'm sure even reputable breeders get them mixed up.

  By  RJ, at 5:52 PM, February 07, 2006  

  ---

• I've had APBT's for years (my parents had them when I was young ) and I (along with my 3 brothers) have never been bitten by a pitbull. They (the APBT's)have never even growled or shown any type of aggression toward me/us. Its all in how the dogs are treated and how they are raised. No particular breed is more likely to turn on you than another. The whole "pitbulls attack without warning" is a myth. This is based on my experience with about 20 different APBT's that me and my family have owned over the years. These dogs are naturally aggressive toward other dogs though. They will routinely attack strange dogs.

  By  Anonymous, at 6:34 PM, February 17, 2006  

  ---

• i own 8 pit all together and not one of them have a bit of aggression to any person they are very gentle with children, the only people that have somthing to say about them are people who have never owned a pit befor and they have nothing better to do than bithc!

  By  dean, at 6:22 AM, March 09, 2006  

  ---

• there are plenty of dog that are aggrsive and the only people that put the blame on pit bulls are people that have never owned one. the reasson most pit bulls git a bad name is because if sombody was to get attacked by a dog that is small the person that was attacked would probably be embarrased and not tell that is was a small dag infact the would say that it was a bigger dog like a pit bull. and mos of the time the person will not even know the difference between a pit bull and a mut and if the mut resembals a pit at all the person will atimatically blame the pit bull breed. (hey jeff i think that you are a bitch because it sounds like you have nothing better to do than lash out at the pit bull breed i think you can clean the sand out of your ass and get over it!)

  By  larry, at 6:33 AM, March 09, 2006  

  ---

• there are plenty of dog that are aggrsive and the only people that put the blame on pit bulls are people that have never owned one. the reasson most pit bulls git a bad name is because if sombody was to get attacked by a dog that is small the person that was attacked would probably be embarrased and not tell that is was a small dag infact the would say that it was a bigger dog like a pit bull. and mos of the time the person will not even know the difference between a pit bull and a mut and if the mut resembals a pit at all the person will atimatically blame the pit bull breed. (hey jeff i think that you are a bitch because it sounds like you have nothing better to do than lash out at the pit bull breed i think you can clean the sand out of your ass and get over it!)

  By  larry, at 6:33 AM, March 09, 2006  

  ---

• i love my pit bull puppie that my boyfriend bout for me it is such a Q T and i think that the people that dont like them are mean.

  By  katie, at 6:41 AM, March 09, 2006  

  ---

• "Pit bulls don't need "love" to adjust to the human envioronmment which their owners place them in, they need serious training."
  
  This is just not true with all pitbulls. Are there some pitbulls that would attack a person? Yes. Are there some pitbulls that would attack another dog? Yes. But I'm sure that if we had a census of how many people owned pitbulls, and compared the number of how many OWNED them to how many had been part of an attack that the numbers would be quite different. I've owned a lovely female pitt for over 2 years now which I got at a local humane society where I used to live. She is the best thing to ever happen to me and my family.
  
  She is the only dog I've ever had that (play time included) has never left one mark on me. She growls when someone comes close to the door, but honestly what would she do if someone came in? Maybe bark, with her tail between her legs. When someone new comes over she runs into the bedroom and hides. She shakes when she sees a squirrel outside, she scared to death of everything!
  
  Many pittbulls are bred to be aggressive towards other dog breeds. If you research it's origin this comes from many years upon years of inbreeding...which could make any animal a bit hostile, with all the birth defects that causes. But most pitbulls that are bred correctly, taken care of correctly, and just showered with love do NOT act like that. It's not me taking up for pitts, it's just truth. Most pitts that attack children are either provoked (and attack just like most other breeds would) OR they were bred/taught to be that way. Too many people use these lovely creatures as guard dogs, no wonder they attack people.
  
  But anyhow, I've began rambling. I just can understand there being laws about pitts as well as other aggressive breeds like Chows...but I think any law that in the end could have a dog euthanized when it has done nothing wrong is just messed up. I love my pitt to the point that if in the end every state in the US has made a law like that, and they say I HAVE to have my dog euthanized, I WILL move out of the country. She's my best friend, and I could never EVER do that.

  By  KH, at 7:20 AM, March 27, 2006  

  ---

• I just thought about this one other thing so let me post about it too (sorry for back-to-back posts)
  
  "most of the time the person will not even know the difference between a pit bull and a mut and if the mut resembals a pit at all"
  
  I've seen this happen, as well as something similar. I had a friend of mine over at the house. She was in love with my dog. She petted her and played with her and was loving it. Then she asked, "What kind of dog is this?" As soon as I said pittbull she jumped back and said that those dogs are dangerous and left. Is this what our society has come to? That someone loves a dog, finds out is an aggressive breed that has had it's fair share of media coverage, and is suddenly scared stiff? That's not right. So many people have loved my dog, found out it was a pitt, and flipped out asking why I could own such an aggressive dog. My dog? Aggressive? She lets me dress her up in clothes and take pictures of her. She lets me lay directly on top of her where she can't breathe and just huffs at me and then wants to play after I get off of her. She's the farthest thing from aggressive I've ever seen. Want an aggressive breed? Chihuahua. I've been bitten 4 times, all by chihuahuas. And I know plenty of other people who have been bitten by them too.

  By  KH, at 7:24 AM, March 27, 2006  

  ---

• Another story. Show me articles in the news about other breeds, not just one incident but many on a specific breed.
  
  
  Owner or animal?
  January 05, 2006
  By Melissa Nobles
  You Report It Submission
  
  It has become a hot topic of debate in our society why dogs are violent. One may claim that it is the owner’s fault, others may state it is the breed of the dog.
  
  Until Tuesday morning I really never had opinion either way. I figured this is America, people have the right to own any breed of dog that they want, as long as they have control over it. Tuesday morning my opinion changed dramatically.
  
  Before school my daughter had went out to feed her six-month-old rottweiller puppy, his name is Bo-dog. Shortly there after I heard a noise which I promise, once heard, a person will never forget.
  
  A loud heart-wrenching cry came from my fenced in backyard; almost as if my puppy was crying for help. As I ran to my back door I knew in my heart something was definitely wrong, I didn't know how wrong. My neighbors’ 3-year-old 180 lbs pitbull had jumped our 4 1/2 foot chain linked fence, and was proceeding to maul our six-month-old puppy.
  
  As my puppy cried for help, with blood everywhere, the owner of the dog ran into my backyard and attempted to beat his dog off of our puppy. His dog turned on him. After the longest 3 minutes of my life he was able to remove his pit bull off of our puppy. I am happy to report our puppy survived the attack, but he has severe nerve damage in his front leg and paw.
  
  So the question is, owner or animal? Who is responsible for such an attack? I hold firm now it is both. Animal owners may say they have the right to own, supervise and control any breed they want because this is America. The people surrounding the owner also have the right to safety.
  
  One may think they have control over their animal, but what happens when the breed clearly is in control of the owner. Even with the best intentions once an animal attacks even the best owner cannot stop what mother nature has created.
  
  Tuesday was a perfect example of what owning a viscous breed of dog can result in even with the best intentions. To the owners of these dogs I say unless you can completely control the animal you have in your possession 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, you may want to think twice about owning certain breeds of dogs.
  
  Because next time it may just not be a puppy in your neighbors yard your dog gets a hold of it may be a child!!!!

  By  Kathy, at 6:42 AM, March 29, 2006  

  ---

• Kathy, that breed of dog is targeted as well. Rotts are mixed in with dangerous dogs because of their size and that people mistreat them to be "vicious" guard dogs. As soon as "pit bulls" are done with, Rotts, Dobermans, and many large breeds will go down as well. Then, we'll end up with no breeds or mutts of any kind because people are morons. And cannot tell the difference between a Lab and a "pit bull."
  
  I would like to ask something though. Why does someone have a 4 1/2' chain link fence to keep a dog inside? Shiba Inus, a fifth the size of the "pit bull" that attacked, can easily clear a 6 foot fence and perch on it. Something under 5 feet stands no chance against a 180 pound dog, or anything for that matter. I've seen a sheep clear an 8 foot fence with ease and keep running. They really need a better fence since a dog got over it.
  
  I would also like to ask why hereditary and breed must play a role. There is no scientific proof that "viciousness" is genetic and passed down through offpsring. If it was, all children of murderers/rapists/abusers would end up like their parents. They don't however. So, it isn't genetics. Maybe a couple of messed up genes every now and then but it does play on the environment mostly.
  
  Let's look at your example, Kathy. The man wasn't fit to own such a large dog. He couldn't get the dog away from the puppy. He beat the dog instead of using commands. If this dog was trained, he would let go on command and listen to the alpha. The man was ignorant on how to control his dog during such a brutal attack. He should not have owned such a dog if he couldn't separate a dog aggressive breed from a small puppy. He also has a fence under 5 feet which is stupid in itself.
  
  That was not a real "pit bull." No APBT is over 90 pounds. That is a Mastiff-APBT mix. Who's to say it wasn't the Mastiff that made him attack? We can't prove it. Neither can DNA testing. Who's to say the puppy didn't look like prey and the dog was hungry? What happened before the attack and if the dog was ever socialized must be accounted as well.
  
  The APBT is one of the highest scoring dogs in the American Canine Temperament Testing as well. It beats many other "people friendly" breeds and many breeds that are considered to be "excellent for children."
  
  Also, PETA's president, Ingrid Newkirk, is against all breeds of "pit bulls," even though she was attacked by a bulldog. She wants them destroyed and done with, even though the organization protests her actions. I've heard of PETA lawyers who show up to defend the kid who probably did as much wrong as the dog. We lose if they win as then, other breeds disappear forever until no more dogs are left. Then what?

  By  RJ, at 5:47 PM, March 31, 2006  

  ---

• I own two pit bull mixes and they are the nicest dogs i've ever had. They love children so much they oftentimes knock them over because they lick them so much. My sister's Jack Russell Terrier is more dangerous than my "vicious mauling creatures". I agree that owners need to be responsible, but this goes for ALL breeds, not just pit bulls. They may get more publicity because they are a hot topic for media coverage and because other breeds are often mistaken for 'pit bulls', but they aren't the only dogs to attack. Try owning one before you make generalizations about how 'all' pit bulls behave, you would be suprised by how wrong your assumption of their genetic predisposition to be aggressive actually is.

  By