Reply With Quote
Because I don't totally disagree with him
Why do you continue your drive-by bombs in this thread that add nothing?
So why do you continue to argue then?
Because I don't totally disagree with him
Why do you continue your drive-by bombs in this thread that add nothing?
Because they make me laugh when they merit a response from people like you.
And I'll have you know that they are short "drive-by's" because clearly I lack the attention span to post anything of any substance.
Clearly...
See, that made me laugh. Not out loud though, it was more of an internal chuckle. In fact, while it didn't cause me to crack a smile, internally, I was sort of doing the "haw haw" type of a laugh.
So see, that's why I've been doing it.
Oh, and it's nurture over nature in my opinion..........then again, I'm the type of person that would rather see a person get hit by a car rather then a dog.
I wanted to see what I could dig up regarding the percentages of attacks and bites by certain dogs and found some interesting stuff.
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/
Today’s media is filled with sensational headlines of dog attacks. Routinely quoted in these newspaper accounts are dated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control. The last CDC study released do ented which breeds of dogs caused the most human fatalities from 1979 through 1998. While the CDC did an admirable job of studying fatal dog attacks, and went to great lengths to point out that irresponsible owners were the cause of most of these incidents, the media and lawmakers continue to use CDC statistics to substantiate claims that certain breeds of dogs are inherently more "vicious" than other breeds.
The result of sensationalizing individual incidents of severe or fatal dog attacks, included with the use of unexamined statistical "evidence" has created an unfortunate and inaccurate public and political perception as to the dangerousness and predictability of certain breeds of dogs. Despite enormous public and political interest in fatal dog attacks, there is no agency or organization that does investigative work (with the exception of this study) into each of the individual cases of fatal dog attacks and records the number and cir stances of fatal dog attacks on a continuous, yearly basis.
This study is conducted in an attempt to understand the human and canine behaviors that contribute to a fatal dog attack. Only in understanding the events and cir stances surrounding these incidents can we hope to prevent future tragedies.
STUDY FINDINGS:
After reviewing over 431 cases of fatal dog attacks it is apparent there is no single factor that translates in a lethal encounter between a person and a dog(s). A fatal dog attack is always the culmination of past and present events that include: inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, socialization, function of the dog, physical condition and size of the dog, reproductive status of dog, popularity of breed, individual temperament, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, victim size and physical condition, timing and misfortune.
While many cir stances may contribute to a fatal dog attack, the following three factors appear to play a critical role in the display of canine aggression towards humans;
1. Function of the dog - (Includes: dogs acquired for fighting, guarding/protection or image enhancement)
2. Owner responsibility - (Includes: dogs allowed to roam loose, chained dogs, dogs and/or children left unsupervised, dogs permitted or encouraged to behave aggressively, animal neglect and/or abuse)
3. Reproductive status of dog - (Includes: unaltered males dogs, es with puppies, children coming between male dog and female dog in estrus)
It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally unusual event. Approximating 20 deaths per year in a dog population of 53 million yields an infinitesimal percent of the dog population (.0000004%) involved in a human fatality.
THE BREED FACTOR
Many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20 human fatalities per year.
Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed.
Pit Bulls in particular have been in a firestorm of bad publicity, and throughout the country Pit Bulls often bear the brunt of breed specific legislation. One severe or fatal attack can result in either restrictions or outright banning of this breed (and other breeds) in a community. While any severe or fatal attack on a person is tragic, there is often a tragic loss of perspective as to degree of dangerousness associated with this breed in reaction to a fatality. Virtually any breed of dog can be implicated in a human fatality.
From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people.
There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally genized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep.
CANINE AGGRESSION - AN OVERVIEW
It is important to emphasize that dogs bite today for the same reasons that they did one hundred or one thousand years ago. Dogs are no more dangerous today than they were a century or millennium ago. They only difference is a shift in human perception of what is and is not natural canine behavior and/or aggression and the breed of dog involved.
Examination of newspaper archival records dating back to the 1950’s and 1960’s reveal the same types of severe and fatal attacks occurring then as today. The only difference is the breed of dog responsible for these events. A random study of 74 severe and fatal attacks reported in the Evening Bulletin (Philadelphia, PA) from 1964-1968, show no severe or fatal attacks by Rottweilers and only one attack attributed to a Pit-Bull-type dog. The dogs involved in most of these incidents were the breeds that were popular at the time.
Over two thousand years ago, Plato extolled a basic understanding of canine behavior when he wrote "the disposition of noble dogs is to be gentle with people they know and the opposite with those they don’t know...." Recently, this fundamental principal of canine behavior seems to elude many people as parents allow their children to be unsupervised with unfamiliar dogs and lawmakers clamor to declare certain dogs as dangerous in response to an attack.
Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.
Addressing the issue of severe and fatal dog attacks as a breed specific problem is akin to treating the symptom and not the disease. Severe and fatal attacks will continue until we come to the realization that allowing a toddler to wander off to a chained dog is more of a critical factor in a fatal dog attack than which breed of dog is at the end of the chain.
Only when we become more knowledgeable, humane and responsible in our treatment of dogs can we hope to prevent future tragedies.
THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001 *
The study covers 431 do ented 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 cir stances
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 cir stances 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.
But that only explains fatalities. What about attacks where the victim doesn't die, but surely is maimed for life, paralyzed, has a physical handicap as a result- are those not severe enough to warrant consideration?
If I could find them, I'd post them.
King's stating the half of all attacks are by pitbulls is false. I'm just looking for actual statistics to prove it.
What this study does point out very clearly is that no dog is naturally violent.
"No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep."
This was the whole point I've been trying to make. Many of you think that Pits are naturally aggressive towards humans and you are flat out wrong.
I would imagine the numbers are similar.
I haven't researched it, I was going off the stat that was posted earlier in the thread.
But still - say pitbulls are only naturally aggressive towards other dogs/animals - You don't see a problem with that?
American Temperament Test Society, Inc. (ATTS) breed statistics as of December 2005 show an 83.5% passing rate for the American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier, as compared to an 81.2% average pass rate for all dog breeds.
In that case, 18.8% of all dogs should be banned.
Don't let your Chihuahua loose in my yard and we don't have a problem right? To answer your question seriously, no, I don't see that as a problem that would require a certain breed of dog to be banned. Should a person with an untrained/unsocialized pitbull take their dog to a public dog park and let it run wild? Of course not. But what is wrong with keeping this dog in a secure yard and restrained when on walks?
I just noticed the only three viewing this thread are the ones that aren't for banning pit bulls.
WE WIN
Nevermind, King showed up.
Out of the 17 dogs who have earned UKC "superdog" status (by gaining championship les in conformation, obedience, agility, and weightpull), nine have been pit bulls.
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Her...oicPitties.htm
How come the news never publishes these stories?
i would say a pit bull problem is almost always an owner problem. my brother's dog, a brittany spaniel/lab mix, got attacked by a pit bull in the park about 5 years ago. the pit bull was off the leash, owned by a sorority girl who watched and screamed as her dog latched onto my brother's dog's throat. my brother didn't know about the tail yank trick to make them let go and almost broke the pit bull's ribs kicking it. you can't really blame the dog entirely for something like that, it's the owner that has no idea how to control or understand how the dog may react in certain situations. i'm no huge fan of the breed, but i'm sure there are plenty of non-violent pit bulls out there.
My girlfriends friend had a pitbull puppy and we took care of it for a while, it was the biggest pussy dog i'd seen in a long time. I was afraid to yell at it too much for fear it would piss on my carpet. I refrained from beating the out of it cuz of the stigma of it being mean as an adult, but i could not see this dog going awol as an adult because it was such a baby.
Later, the owner's apartment manager saw the dog and told her that pit bulls were not allowed in the complex.
I can just stare at my brindle one and she'll pee. She is quite the puss.
Given the above info, why are so many pit bull owners IDIOTS? Are pit bulls more inclined to have idiot owners than other breeds? IMO, this is enough to legislate restrictions on these animals. Pits are dangerous animals.
Yes, Pitbulls are more inclined to have idiot owners. Many people get these dogs to boost their machismo factor, and these same people are a lot of the times uneducated gang bangers, or people along those lines.
If restrictions are put on these dogs, these same idiots will just move on to another dog breed and the problems will still be the same. It has everything to do with the owner. If you look at the cities that have banned Pitbulls, you'll notice something interesting, dog bites/attacks have not gone down.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions