pit bulls...have we mentioned them?

I'll bet that was a gruesome scene.

 

Yup. I suspect being killed by a dog is an unpleasant way to go.

 

As much as people love to claim that these dogs can be trained into a loving and gentle pet, it is entirely untrue. It's like claiming you could train your chihuahua to be as large as a St. Bernard. Pit bulls were specifically bred to be as aggressive as possible, and all of that selective breeding and genetic simply cannot be trained to go away.

This is yet another sad story in a long line of sad stories that will continue to happen as long as people own pit bulls, it's just a fact.

 

There is also the belief that the dogs as pets become a family member. People forget they are still animals that will act on instinct. Some breeds are gentler and this is often directly related to how the breeding was controlled. The Pit Bull is very strong and I think the breed was originally developed for their aggressiveness and fighting.

I shiver when I hear how people are adopting abused dogs and bringing them home as family pets. Abused animals, while sad, are still abused animals.


A 5 year old!!!! The owners need to do jail time!!!

 

Really? Have you ever owned a Pit or rescued one? I imagine you speak with the utmost authority on dog rehabilitation and you have more than likely owned several Pits and know exactly how they behave and act and why. You also know the history of these dogs and their purpose.

I love all of the people who come out and bash a breed due to people exploiting an animals power. I guess because I can bench press 405 lbs that makes me a killer too. I should be in prision. I couldnt possibly be a nice person. Just another oversized human that is a menace to society.

Really people? Get a life. One bad owner does not make a breed of animal bad. Punish the deed not the breed. Show me a mean PitBull and I will show you an owner who trained the animal to attack.

You people really need to get a life.

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/pawprintpost/post/2010/02/rachel-rays-pitbull-attacks-a-dog/1

"Ray's fear about Isaboo being put down stems from the fact this is not the dog's first violent incident. According to the story, Ray has also been injured by the dog."

 

Right back at ya!

 

Get one yourself. Because one dog attacks one person you condem the entire breed. I think Hitler had a simalar attitude.

 

Real Stats:


Every 40 seconds, someone in the United States seeks medical attention for a dog bite.

There are approximately 800,000 bites per year in the United States that require medical treatment.
Most of the victims are children, and most of them are bitten on the face.

Almost $165 million is spent treating dog bites and 70% of dog bites occur on the owner's property.

Dog bites result in approximately 44,000 facial injuries each year. This represents between 0.5% and 1.5% of all hospital emergency room visits. Male patients slightly outnumber females. Unfortunately children comprise 60% of the dog bite victims. Severe injuries occur almost exclusively in children less than 10 years of age. The face is the most frequent target (77% of all injures). Mail carriers are an exception where 97% involve the lower extremities. We see an unusual number of dreadful injuries each spring. Severely injured patients stay an average of 4.2 days in the hospital. Dog bites cause an average of 18 deaths a year.

Types of injuries

Dog bites can inflict Cuts and lacerations, abrasions, crushing wounds, punctures and fractured bones. These wounds can often result in disfiguring scars. The central target area for the face includes the lips, nose, and cheeks.

Dog bites are becoming more common because of the increase in dog ownership and interaction of people and dogs. Many owners are ignorant of proper care and training of dogs.

The vast majority of bites are by pet dogs and happen when people are engaged in social behavior in appropriate places. They generally (61%) occur close to dog's home or home of the bitten person. Typically (77%) injuries are by friendly dogs known to the bitten person. It is impossible to predict what might provoke a friendly dog to bite. They may be in pain, become panic stricken, feel threatened, or any number of factors. Children aged 5 or younger are more likely to provoke animals. Dog should never be left unattended with small children.

Hounds are less likely to injure than working or sporting breeds. Puppies are also more likely to injure than an adult dog.

There are social trends towards training and keeping dangerous animals by inexperienced owners. Aggressive guard dogs are trained for self protection. While any dog can bite, the top biting breeds include:

* Pit Bulls (originally bred to fight these are particularly deadly) and widely kept as "pets." Read More on these Deadly Dogs >>

Among the deadliest and most vicious of all dog breeds with killer instincts, originally bred to fight and kill other dogs, Pit Bulls are now widely popular as companion dogs, especially in American cities. Their popularly is strange given their homicidal history and aggressive in-bred traits, but that is seemingly part of the appeal. With its powerful jaws, thick skull and muscular legs the American Pit Bull Terrier (and related breeds) makes short work of children and adults it attacks often maiming them for life. The very name "pit bull" is used in our language to signify a singularly tenacious state of being.

This breed is variously cited as being responsible for nearly a third of all fatal dog attacks in the United States, in part due to its tenacity in a fight. Pit bulls cause one-third of dog-bite related fatalities while only make up less than 2% of the dog population. Because of the deaths, maulings and serious injuries inflicted by Pit Bulls, many countries worldwide ban these dogs altogether or require licenses for ownership of them. In response to many high profile maulings and fatal attacks by Pit Bulls, many US cities and towns have specifically targeted the breed with legislation restricting ownership and increasing penalties on owners for attacks made by their Pit Bulls. Pit Bulls are often responsible for attacking and killing other dog breeds as well as cats and small pets. Police officers often need to shoot and kill this breed in order to subdue it after attacks on humans or other animals in US cities. In recent years several owners of these dogs in the United States have been criminally prosecuted in homicide cases. Sadly, many of the owners of these deadly dogs do not possess insurance and the maimed victims go uncompensated. Apologists for these vicious dogs abound online, but facts are facts. These dogs have little or no business being pets in anyone's household they are simply too aggressive and dangerous.

Other aggressive breeds include:
* Rotweilers
* German Shepherds
* Huskies
* Doberman Pinschers
* Chow Chows

From site: http://www.dog-bite-law-center.com/pgs/stats.html

 

The problem with statistics
The conclusions that we draw about dangerous canines is derived from what we know about them. Our information primarily comes from our own random experiences, accounts of friends and family, and what we pick up from our culture. Norman Rockwell, the movie "Ferris Beuller's Day Off," and countless works of entertainment have presented dog attacks as being prosaic or even great fun. Less often, we are exposed to media accounts, governmental studies, lawmakers' arguments, reports from organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control, and the opinions of experts who have conducted original research.

Unfortunately, however, there are serious gaps in the data on this subject, leaving our assumptions and conclusions open to doubt. One of the most serious deficiencies pertains to the nature of the particular attack, meaning whether it was an angry assault, a playful turn of the head that resulted in a tooth catching the victim's skin, or something in between. In some cases, we are more interested in vicious attacks and less interested in pure accidents. For example, we need accurate information about vicious attacks when we debate the issue of breed bans. There are times, however, when we may be more interested in pure accidents, such as when considering whether dogs should be permitted in day care centers and hair salons. The nature of the attack is an inherently difficult issue to study on a wide-scale basis. To do so requires the questioning of witnesses and an impartial evaluation that is free of bias. In other words, it requires that we study trials or attend trials. This is feasible but has not been attempted to date.

Another deficiency is the extent of the damage inflicted on the victim. In most cases, we need to know which dogs are associated with the greatest damage. Such information is of prime importance in the debate on breed bans, the legal definition of an "assistance animal," the crafting of fair housing regulations on the federal and state level, and in similar matters. In some instances, however, we want to add up all of the scratches and nips too. There are people, such as parents, day care operators, dog park stewards and others, who need to compare a wide variety of characteristics of dogs, including whether a certain breed is more likely to scratch and nip.

The studies of fatal dog attacks or "canine homicides" are potentially most useful because they give us more details and focus on obviously serious injuries. Nevertheless, even these studies raise questions. Three commonly accepted sources of information about canine homicides are the CDC, Merritt Clifton (editor of Animal People), and Karen Delise (author of Fatal Dog Attacks). However, none of their figures agree. This is largely because of the difficulties involved in gathering dog bite statistics. When the CDC reported on canine homicides, one of their methods of ensuring accuracy was to eliminate all death reports that did not appear in LexisNexis. When Delise did her study, she included all homicides which were confirmed in other reliable ways, such as by interviews and police files, and arrived at a figure that was 100 deaths higher than the CDC. Clifton's study includes both the USA and Canada, and is derived from newspaper accounts as well as his review of photographs and files.

Delise illustrates the information problem in the following graphic way (quoted from E-mail by her to Attorney Kenneth Phillips):

Consider five fatal attacks included in the CDC statistics.

A man was bitten in the forearm by a Pit bull. The bite was not serious but introduced into the wound was a virulent and fast spreading bacteria. The man died 4 days later from this virulent bacterial infection.

A teenage girl give birth to a infant, distraught and frightened, she tossed the hours-old infant into a neighboring-junk-strewn yard where two Pit bulls resided. The dogs killed the newborn.

A German shepherd mixed breed dog went into a bedroom, lifted a newborn out of a crib and carried the infant (by the head) into the living room where the adults were seated.

A man restrains his girlfriend, while ordering his Pit bull to repeatedly attack her. He is eventually convicted of murder and is serving a 20-year sentence.

An elderly man attempts to stop his German Shepherd dog from fence fighting with his neighbor's dog, the dog turns on his owner, severely mauling him, inflicting fatal head and neck wounds.

The CDC was right, in that five people died as a result of a dog bite. But were all these bites the result of aggression? Were they the same type or level of aggression? Which behaviors initiated the attack, human or canine? So the number of deaths by dogs (as per the CDC) cannot be used to define aggression, or the aggression of certain breeds, as aggression is not defined or qualified.

The disagreement among experts, and the dearth of recent statistics, were two of the reasons why an appellate court for the State of Ohio ruled in 2006 that a pair of breed-based dangerous dog laws were unconstitutional. City of Toledo v. Tellings, 5th Dist. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975 (Ohio App. 2006). The supreme court of the state accepted this case for review in August 2006 (110 Ohio St.3d 1435). The court of appeals began its analysis by noting:

Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society. [Citing State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168.] ... As scientific information advances and becomes available, courts have a duty to reconsider issues and make decisions which are supported by the actual evidence presented, instead of relying on "common knowledge" and opinion generated by newspaper sensationalism and hearsay, rather than accurate, scientific evidence. [Par.] As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late 1980's and early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. ... The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds."

The court then stated that,

Our review of the record reveals no current statistics since 1996 were presented to support the notion that pit bulls have continued to be involved in a "disproportionate number" of attacks or fatalities. In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional.


http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm

 

I understand the issues.

However, one cannot argue that Pit Bulls are at the top of the list and yet are only 2% of the dog population. That cannot all be all accidental contact. When making laws, the issues need to be defined very well, however, that is not necessary to simply educate people on the breeds having a higher probability of a bite. Accidental or not, Pit Bulls have a higher probability of biting.

Owners need to know and understand that the higher probability means they MUST control their dog.

 

Cool it, please. Now.

 

As an outside party looking in, I can say that one bad apple doesn't spoil the batch. I can say with all honesty that I've been bitten by more Chihuahuas than anything. If anything, those little rat dogs have no place in the world. They're pretty useless IMHO.

That being said, it sounds kind of odd doesn't it? My old roommate had a blue pit, and that dog was the nicest and sweetest dog ever. My cat even whooped up on it the first day he had her and the next day they were best buddies. They'd sleep with each other all the time. The only problems we ever had with her, or his Chow, or his other 2 pits he rescued and then gave to good homes were they tore stuff up. They got bored during the day when we were at work and decided that anything they could get their teeth around was a play toy.

I think we hear every case we can about the pits attacking, german shepherds attacking, rotties attacking, etc. because they are considered "dangerous" or "bully breeds". Yes, they were used as attack dogs and sometimes when raised as such, it's hard to get that mentality out of them. That's not the dogs fault. Dogs also have personalities. There are just plain mean dogs, just like there are mean people. If we went around and killed every mean person in the world... Just think.

I'm not going to get into the argument as I'm not extremely pro-pit or anti-pit, I just think each dog needs to be treated as an individual animal and not as a stereotype.

Just my $0.02,

Brian

 

Love,

Me and my killer dogs.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This thread is turning ugly lets lay off the personal attacks guys.

 

Heres how I see it.

Genetics are a powerful thing. Some dogs, like my Pyrenees are bred for herding. He has never even seen a sheep never mind herded one. Yet he instinctively herds people and nips at their ankles to go where he wants them to.

No one will deny that fact about the Pyrenees. Its in their genes now even though its probably been 100+ years since any dog in his bloodline actually herded anything.

So it makes sense that if one acquires a Pit that comes from a genetic line that has been bred to be violent that , regardless of how you train it, it has a higher than likely degree of snapping one day and causing serious damage.

That doesnt make me hate Pits or think they should all be banned. But it certainly make me wary of them and more concerned about the lineage of the dog than if the current owner raised it properly. So unless a pit comes with thorough documentation showing it comes from a non-violent bloodline I am not hanging out with it.

I feel this is a rational and logical perspective.

 

You should be more upset with the failure of the sheriff's department to do anything about someone that had a pen with several of these dogs and was probably fighting them. Not all pits are aggressive, they need to be trained to be aggressive. If you would get off your high horse long enough, perhaps you would understand that.

 

May as well ban Chows too then, b/c they're known for the exact same thing just don't get the media exposure.

I love pits and think they get a bad rep.

 

Not meaning to stir the pot, but has a Chow ever killed someone?

Don't get me wrong, I like Pits too, just not my type of dog. I think they need special handling and owners.

 

Keep posting this, you are only making it easier for the future plaintiff and/or prosecution. Actually, I encourage you to kill everyone and everything you feel is a threat. People like you make sure trial lawyers like me will not ever be poor.

Mark

PS: BTW, how do you plan on killing every pitbull you see within 5 miles of your kid??? I doubt by hand since you deem them so dangerous and deadly?