Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz Bee
Pitbull isn't a breed, it is a type. There are several breeds of dogs which comprise the type, as well as mixes. None are large. To be more accurate, molosser type dogs are responsible for the vast majority of fatalities. A lot of dogs are called "pit bull" when they aren't even terriers.
this study http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-atta...ifton-2013.pdf
breaks down US and Canada stats by breeds. In my view, the study is flawed in that it doesn't further break down the gender and sexual status (neutered or intact) of these dogs involved in the attacks, but it does support the general notion that there is a "type" or "class" of dogs which are more likely to attack.
Other data shows that intact male dogs, regardless of breed, are responsible for over 70% of dog attacks. So, to loop this post back to the subject, again, the dogs involved in the attack were intact, there were pregnant females, etc.
It seems that a lot of dogs that are raised for fighting are kept intact, there are a lot of guys out there who are too "macho" to neuter their dogs, people keep their dogs intact for backyard breeding.
It really comes back to ownership. There are a lot of people out there who are not responsible dog owners and handlers, they don't train their dogs, they can't control them, they use them for sport only, they breed for aggression, etc. |
Excellent article. But the conclusion
BY YOU of being neutered will take away all the attacks is silly.
Lets stick to the facts people
Directly from the study
"Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity to be listed,
pit bulls and their close mixes make up only about 6% of the total U.S. dog population,
according to my frequent surveys of regionally balanced samples of classified ads of dogs
for sale, but they constitute 37% of the dog population in U.S. animal shelters at any
given time, according to my 2013 single-day shelter inventory survey, which followed
up similar surveys producing similar results done in 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Pit bulls are noteworthy on the chart above for attacking adults almost as
frequently as children. This is a very rare pattern, also seen in the
bull mastiff/Presa
Canario line. Children are normally at greatest risk from dog bite because they play with
dogs more often, have less experience in reading dog behavior, are more likely to
engage in activity that alarms or stimulates a dog, and are less able to defend themselves
when a dog becomes aggressive.
Pit bulls and the bull mastiff/Presa Canario dog
category (whose ancestry overlaps pit bull ancestry) seem to differ behaviorally from
other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are. They are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency
exacerbated by the formerly common and still occasionally seen custom of docking pit
bulls’ tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus the adult victim of a
pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity to read the warning signals that
would avert an attack from any other dog.
Rottweilers by contrast show a fairly normal child/adult attack ratio. They seem
to show up disproportionately often in the mauling, killing, and maiming statistics
simply
because they are both quite popular and very powerful, capable of doing a great
deal of damage in cases where bites by other breeds might be relatively harmless.
Wolf hybrids, German shepherds, and huskies are at the extreme opposite end of
the scale, rarely inflicting severe injury on adults––but it would be a huge mistake to
assume that these seemingly similar patterns reflect similar behavior.
German shepherds are herding dogs, bred for generations to guide and protect
sheep. In modern society, they are among the dogs of choice for families with small
children, because of their extremely strong protective instinct. They have three
distinctively different bites: the guiding nip, which usually does not break the skin; the
grab-and-drag, to pull a puppy or lamb or child away from danger, which is as gentle as
emergency circumstances allow; and the reactive bite, usually in defense of territory, a
child, or someone else the dog is inclined to guard. The reactive bite usually comes only
after many warning barks, growls, and other exhibitions intended to avert a conflict.
When it does come, it is typically accompanied by a frontal leap for the wrist or throat.
Because German shepherds often use the guiding nip and the grab-and-drag with
children, who sometimes misread the dogs’ intentions and pull away in panic, they are
involved in biting incidents at almost twice the rate that their numbers alone would
predict: approximately 28% of all bite cases, according to a recent five-year compilation
of Minneapolis animal control data. Yet none of the Minneapolis bites by German
shepherds involved a serious injury: hurting someone is almost never the dogs’ intent.
Every one of the wolf hybrid attacks, however, seems to have been predatory.
Only four of the fatality victims were older than age seven, and all three were of small
stature. The first adult fatality was killed in the presence of her two young sons, whom
she was apparently trying to protect. The second was killed while apparently trying to
protect her dog. Most of the victims were killed very quickly. Some never knew the
wolf hybrid was present. Some may never have known what hit them. Some were killed
right in front of parents, who had no time to react.
---
Akitas, Malamutes, and Samoyeds have a similar attack pattern, but while these
are also “northern breeds” used to pull sleds, most of the attacks by Akitas, Malamutes,
and Samoyeds have occurred in ordinary home situations.
Chows, apparently an ancient cross of Arctic dogs with dogs of molosser lineage,
exhibit an attack pattern comparable to that of the northern breeds.
What all this may mean relative to legislation is problematic. Historically, breedspecific
legislation has proved very difficult to enforce because of the problems inherent
in defining animals for whom there may be no breed standards, or conflicting standards.
Both pit bulls and wolf hybrids tend to elude easy legal definition; neither can they be
recognized by genetic testing.
The traditional approach to dangerous dog legislation is to allow “one free bite,”
at which point the owner is warned. On second bite, the dog is killed. The traditional
approach, however, patently does not apply in addressing the threats from pit bulls,
Rottweilers, and wolf hybrids.
In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the
life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the
animal in question. Children and elderly people were almost always the victims.
Temperament, I must emphasize, is not the issue illustrated by the above data,
nor is it relevant. What this data reveals is actuarial risk.
If almost any other dog has a
bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the
actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable.
If a pit bull or a Rottweiler has a bad moment,
often someone is maimed or killed––and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk,
for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."
Again people's SICK obsession with owning dangerous dogs and valuing dog life over human life is leading to this totally avoidable carnage. Again certain breeds CLEARLY showing a propensity to attacking that's higher than other breeds. This is REALITY and backed up with facts. Mastiffs/presa's/pitbulls/rottweilers/akita's and mixes of these dogs are notoriously dangerous. There's a reason insurance companies won't insure people who have certain breeds
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
