Should pit bull owners be allowed to breed?
12-16-2016
, 05:45 AM
12-16-2016
, 07:03 AM
12-16-2016
, 09:16 AM
12-16-2016
, 09:59 AM
12-16-2016
, 08:23 PM
12-16-2016
, 08:23 PM
12-16-2016
, 09:03 PM
Quote:
its not like pitbulls are barely edging out the competition in mauling toddlers. its not pitbulls>dogo argentino>rottweilers>german sheperds>everything else. its pits>>>>>>>everything else.
even if we assume that theres reasonable margin of error pit bulls are still far and away the leader of the pack.
even if we assume that theres reasonable margin of error pit bulls are still far and away the leader of the pack.
Quote:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 1974–1975
The first epidemiological study of dog-bite fatalities in the United States was conducted by an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1977.[4] The study reported that all but one of the cases involved male dogs. The breeds reported in these incidents were St. Bernard, German Shepherd, Dachshund, Basenji, Collie, Husky, and Great Dane.
The first epidemiological study of dog-bite fatalities in the United States was conducted by an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1977.[4] The study reported that all but one of the cases involved male dogs. The breeds reported in these incidents were St. Bernard, German Shepherd, Dachshund, Basenji, Collie, Husky, and Great Dane.
Quote:
University of Texas Study: 1966–1980
A study[5] conducted at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School identified 74 fatal dog bites during the period 1966–1980 from news media and medical literature.
Most fatalities were young children, including 23 infants under 1 year old. In most cases, the dog was owned by the victim's family. In only 3 of the incidents was the dog reported to have been provoked by kicking, hitting, or having stones thrown at it. However, several incidents involved a child attempting to pet or hug the dog.[5]
In 6 of the incidents, there was no information available about the kind of dogs involved. In ten fatal attacks, the dogs were only described as "mixed-breed".
Many involved large and powerful molosser breeds: eight Saint Bernards, six Bull terriers, six Great Danes, two Boxers and a Rottweiler. In contrast to the time period covered other studies, the researchers found no fatal attacks attributed to any pit bulls at all.
A study[5] conducted at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School identified 74 fatal dog bites during the period 1966–1980 from news media and medical literature.
Most fatalities were young children, including 23 infants under 1 year old. In most cases, the dog was owned by the victim's family. In only 3 of the incidents was the dog reported to have been provoked by kicking, hitting, or having stones thrown at it. However, several incidents involved a child attempting to pet or hug the dog.[5]
In 6 of the incidents, there was no information available about the kind of dogs involved. In ten fatal attacks, the dogs were only described as "mixed-breed".
Many involved large and powerful molosser breeds: eight Saint Bernards, six Bull terriers, six Great Danes, two Boxers and a Rottweiler. In contrast to the time period covered other studies, the researchers found no fatal attacks attributed to any pit bulls at all.
Quote:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 1979–1998
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study in 2000 on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) that covered the years 1979–1998. The report concluded that relying on media coverage of dog-bite-related fatalities presents a biased view of the dogs involved. They stated that media reports are likely to only cover about 74% of the actual incidents and that dog attacks involving certain breeds may be more likely to receive media coverage. They also reported that since breed identification is difficult and subjective, attacks may be more likely to be "ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression".[6]
The study found reports of 327 people killed by dogs over the 20-year period. Some breed information was available for 238 (73%) of the fatalities. Of 227 incidents with relevant data, 133 (58%) were unrestrained dogs and on the owners' property; 55 (24%) were loose off the owners' property; 38 (17%) were restrained dogs on their owners' property; and only one (less than 1%) was restrained off the owners' property.[6]
The study defined dog attacks as "a human death caused by trauma from a dog bite"...
The study found that Pit bulls and Rottweilers alone accounted for 67% of deaths, but there were also several Bullmastiffs, Boxers, Bull Terriers, Great Danes, St. Bernards, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, a bulldog, and a Newfoundland.
Working dogs, however, were also frequently implicated, mostly German Shepherds and Doberman Pinschers...
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study in 2000 on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) that covered the years 1979–1998. The report concluded that relying on media coverage of dog-bite-related fatalities presents a biased view of the dogs involved. They stated that media reports are likely to only cover about 74% of the actual incidents and that dog attacks involving certain breeds may be more likely to receive media coverage. They also reported that since breed identification is difficult and subjective, attacks may be more likely to be "ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression".[6]
The study found reports of 327 people killed by dogs over the 20-year period. Some breed information was available for 238 (73%) of the fatalities. Of 227 incidents with relevant data, 133 (58%) were unrestrained dogs and on the owners' property; 55 (24%) were loose off the owners' property; 38 (17%) were restrained dogs on their owners' property; and only one (less than 1%) was restrained off the owners' property.[6]
The study defined dog attacks as "a human death caused by trauma from a dog bite"...
The study found that Pit bulls and Rottweilers alone accounted for 67% of deaths, but there were also several Bullmastiffs, Boxers, Bull Terriers, Great Danes, St. Bernards, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, a bulldog, and a Newfoundland.
Working dogs, however, were also frequently implicated, mostly German Shepherds and Doberman Pinschers...
Quote:
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association: 2000–2009
The most recent study of the epidemiology of fatal dog bites in the United States was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2013.[8] While earlier studies were based on television and newspaper reports, this was the first study to be based on law-enforcement reports, animal control reports, and investigator statements. It identified preventable factors in the fatal incidents. They found that the most common contributing factors were: absence of an able-bodied person to intervene, no familiar relationship of victims with dogs, owner failure to neuter dogs, compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (e.g. mental disabilities), dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (e.g. dogs kept chained in backyards), owners' prior mismanagement of dogs, and owners' history of abuse or neglect of dogs. Furthermore, they found that in 80% of the incidents, 4 or more of the above factors co-occurred.
The authors found that in a significant number of DBRFs there was either a conflict between different media sources reporting breed and/or a conflict between media and animal control reports relative to the reporting of breed. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts of DBRFs, media sources reported conflicting breed attributions for 124 of the dogs (30.9%); and where there were media reports and an animal control report (346 dogs), there were conflicting breed attributions for 139 dogs (40.2%)
According to this study, reliable verification of the breed of dog was only possible in 18% of incidents.
The most recent study of the epidemiology of fatal dog bites in the United States was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2013.[8] While earlier studies were based on television and newspaper reports, this was the first study to be based on law-enforcement reports, animal control reports, and investigator statements. It identified preventable factors in the fatal incidents. They found that the most common contributing factors were: absence of an able-bodied person to intervene, no familiar relationship of victims with dogs, owner failure to neuter dogs, compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (e.g. mental disabilities), dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (e.g. dogs kept chained in backyards), owners' prior mismanagement of dogs, and owners' history of abuse or neglect of dogs. Furthermore, they found that in 80% of the incidents, 4 or more of the above factors co-occurred.
The authors found that in a significant number of DBRFs there was either a conflict between different media sources reporting breed and/or a conflict between media and animal control reports relative to the reporting of breed. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts of DBRFs, media sources reported conflicting breed attributions for 124 of the dogs (30.9%); and where there were media reports and an animal control report (346 dogs), there were conflicting breed attributions for 139 dogs (40.2%)
According to this study, reliable verification of the breed of dog was only possible in 18% of incidents.
So we can see that identifying the dogs 'breed' is problematic for starters, and that in some studies so-called 'pit bulls' aren't even on the radar for dangerous breeds of dogs, let alone leading the pack by a wide margin.
I am not saying 'pit bulls' are not dangerous - but looked at dispassionately it would appear there are many factors identified in the last study mentioned which can prevent dog attacks - these are all things under the control of the 'owners'.
Last edited by proudfootz; 12-16-2016 at 09:06 PM.
Reason: formatting
12-16-2016
, 09:29 PM
Quote:
Funny, but when I look up studies about fatal attacks on humans by dogs some don't even mention 'pit bulls'...
But 'pit bulls' are supposed to be far and away the leaders - they must be giving orders to these other breeds.
After being invisible to science for for decades, these 'pit bulls' suddenly got the gene for being dangerous. Apparently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_...isting_studies
So we can see that identifying the dogs 'breed' is problematic for starters, and that in some studies so-called 'pit bulls' aren't even on the radar for dangerous breeds of dogs, let alone leading the pack by a wide margin.
I am not saying 'pit bulls' are not dangerous - but looked at dispassionately it would appear there are many factors identified in the last study mentioned which can prevent dog attacks - these are all things under the control of the 'owners'.
But 'pit bulls' are supposed to be far and away the leaders - they must be giving orders to these other breeds.
After being invisible to science for for decades, these 'pit bulls' suddenly got the gene for being dangerous. Apparently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_...isting_studies
So we can see that identifying the dogs 'breed' is problematic for starters, and that in some studies so-called 'pit bulls' aren't even on the radar for dangerous breeds of dogs, let alone leading the pack by a wide margin.
I am not saying 'pit bulls' are not dangerous - but looked at dispassionately it would appear there are many factors identified in the last study mentioned which can prevent dog attacks - these are all things under the control of the 'owners'.
Truth be told, I never knew all of this either. But if you're going to use breed names as your claim to them not being vicious, you should probably brush up on the history of the breed name first.
12-17-2016
, 12:35 AM
Proud, what does quoting a bunch of studies from before the pit bull era achieve?
Dogsbite's stats >>>>^100 than any of those studies. They have everything documented and photos of the dog so you can see everything's legit in the counting.
12-17-2016
, 01:12 AM
12-17-2016
, 04:49 AM
I am very active in dog rescue and adamantly believe that all dogs should be fixed, way more dogs than families to take care of them and there's no reason to keep the vast majority of dogs intact. That said I've seen enough of "owners" to know how badly people suck and mistreat even supposedly friendly breeds until they can't be trusted around people, especially kids who can't read a dog's body language. Biggest problem in our area is that backyard breeders pump out tons of these dogs and a decent percentage of them don't get properly socialized as puppies (should happen between 6 and 12 weeks of age) and then get sold to owners who have no idea how to properly care for the breed. So now you have an unsocialized dog without proper training and lots of bad things can happen and its not just bullies, there are just way more of them than the other breeds. We've had several bullies through our rescue over the last few years that have been adopted out with zero problems. We've also had three dogs wash out where we pulled them out of shelter knowing that had potential behavior problems that couldn't be overcome (one Malinois and two Bully mixes.) Worst feeling ever to have a dog that is 99% well behaved but can't be trusted to be adopted out - heart breaking to have to take a dog you've bonded with to be euthanized when you know if his owners had properly socialized him he would almost certainly be an awesome pet.
FYI Middle dog here is a pit/lab mix who would probably fail the appearance test in a BSL location but is the sweetest, most docile and submissive dog you've ever met.
FYI Middle dog here is a pit/lab mix who would probably fail the appearance test in a BSL location but is the sweetest, most docile and submissive dog you've ever met.
12-17-2016
, 06:20 AM