Trivia: Pit Bulls and Dog Attacks

1. Carruthers
   January 17th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

   Dogs - and other dangerous animals like this - should be licensed like guns are. Half the reason people get pit bulls is for the deterrent and defense factor - just like gun ownership.

2. mrihel
   January 17th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

   Let's not forget that the reason for this is that many people train pit bulls to be mean and aggressive. It was the same with Dobermans in the '80s. A Pit Bull isn't mean by nature, but by training. They can be very sweet animals. They've just gotten a bad reputation because of irresponsible or downright despicable owners.

3. dmr
   January 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

   More Pitbull trivia:

   Out of the 25 dogs who have earned UKC "superdog" status (by gaining championship titles in conformation, obedience, agility, and weightpull), fourteen have been pit bulls[citation needed], almost 60%

   Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a coconut than a pit bull.

   The American Temperament Testing Society shows a pass percentage of 84.1% for pit bulls, which is slightly higher than the Golden Retriever at 83.8%.

   Pit Bulls represent 5% to 9.6% of the total US canine population of roughly 55-60 million dogs.

4. ekim
   January 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pm

   I will tell you from personal experience that the adoption of breed-specific legislation faces significant opposition from a very vocal lobby of dog owners. See the Wikipedia article on BSL linked under my name - while it contains some worthwhile information, the tone of the "Pros and Cons" section (no pros, all cons) will give you some idea.

5. Skipweasel
   January 17th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

   From time to time a child gets killed here in the UK. The owners of the dog always seem amazed - but by then it's a bit late.

   They're mostly chavs, too. It's an image thing - having large nasty dogs with bad attitudes to match those of the owners. Unfortunately breed specific legislation doesn't seem to have worked here as there are so few breeds on the list.

6. PJ
   January 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

   No mention of dalmations? Per capita dog population they are most likely to attack somone. It's not the dog's fault in most cases. Think of it this way, think about how stupid the average person is, then figure that half the people around are dumber than them, then figure that they own and "train" dogs. I blame people. Just a week ago some dumbass let his chow mix come after me while I was on my bike, turns out he did it to my girlfreind too. I don't blame the dog, I blame the asshole. I felt awful when I had to mace the poor beast and not him. I've never been attacked or threatend by a pit or pit mix, ever. Only chows, dalmations, sheperds, labs and other "family" dogs. I still think pits get an unfair rep.

7. DaveMD
   January 17th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

   These 'facts' are ridiculous. A 'pit bull' is not a breed, it's usually a mis-identified mutt that might have some sort of bull terrier in it, 'pit bull' is a wonderful little media name designed to stir up headlines. Breed specific legislation is ridiculous, hold the owner accountable, not the breed.

8. Sid Morrison
   January 17th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

   oh, this is so silly... People get bitten by lots of dog breeds including mixed breeds. How does one possibly define the "dangerous" ones by breed alone? You could outlaw pitbulls and Rottweilers and then somebody will have a mongrel that is a quarter each Pitbull, Rottweiller, Chow, and German Shepherd chew the face off a kid and then be in the clear. And what about dogs of uncertain lineage? Shall all dogs be DNA tested to try to determine their ancestry?

   All stupid proposed laws like this do is further remove people from individual responsibility. Instead of blaming the dog (or its breed), blame the owners. Prosecute them mercilessly for vicious attacks on the part of their pets. Sure some otherwise "nice people whose nice dogs went nuts" will get tossed in the klink, but it's the only manageable way to control the risk.

9. Sid Morrison
   January 17th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

   PS - gotta love the term "chav" Skipweasel used. It's almost entirely unknown in the U.S., but sounds much a lot more polite than "urban white trash".

   Yo yo... is Ali G in da house?

10. Malusa
    January 17th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

    Saying that "pit bulls" cause 50% of all serious attacks is like saying "retrievers" cause 50% of attacks. "Pit bull" isn't a breed, it's a vague term applied to a very large group of breeds including the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, English Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Presa Canario, American Bulldog, Mastiff and even the Boxer, just to name a few. Let's take the Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, Flat-Coated Retriever, Chesapeake Bay Retriever, and Duck-Tolling Retriever and mash them all up into one "breed," and see what kind of statistics we get, hm?

11. Tyler
    January 17th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    If you'd like to read something insightful on the subject, I'll refer you to Malcolm Gladwell's excellent New Yorker article:

    http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_06_a_pitbull.html

12. Alex
    January 17th, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    Whatever you want to call it - pit bull or pit-bull like dogs, facts remain that they're responsible for a disproportionate amount of bites and attacks when compared to their population.

    You can't hide the aggressiveness and damage caused by pit bulls by saying "pit bulls don't exist - they're made of many different breeds." It's like saying gang violence doesn't exist - you just have many different local 'hoods that are individually very violent. (Okay, the analogy isn't perfect, but you get my drift).

    Re: temperament - different breeds of dogs are known to have different temperaments. Indeed, it's possible to breed dogs that are aggressive or meek by selecting the temperaments of their parents. Do this over a course of many generations, you'll get the generalized characteristic of a breed. Pit bulls were prized and bred for their fighting ability. It's no surprise that you get what you breed...

    @Tyler: thank you for the link - it was very interesting.

    Ask yourself this: you see two dogs you've never seen before guarding two roads. A chihuahua and a pit bull. Which road would you chose?

    I'd take a chihuahua vs. a pit bull anyday (unless I know FOR SURE that the pit bull is a docile dog), because I know that the damage caused by the little yapper can't match the potential damage a pit bull can inflict.

    We've had many dogs in our family, including aggressive breeds like chows and dobermans. And guess what? Generally speaking, those dogs ARE more aggressive than other breeds.

13. Just Me
    January 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

    @Alex,

    Remember that most of the dog bites are not reported. I don't think that people who get bit by a golden retriever, a dalmation, or many other breeds will report it as readily as they would report a "vicious pit bull".

    Anyways, pit bulls are very sweet dogs. As a matter of fact, they suck as protection dogs, because they were bred to be super good to humans. If a thief comes to your house, the pit bull will probably lick him to death.

    BTW, my 85 lbs. American Bulldog got attacked by a golden retriever once!!! hehehehe, I didn't know that the goldens had an aggressive bone in them. Just to show you that this debate is more complicated than people think...my dog didn't even fight him, he just wagged his tail...he does that to all dogs, even if they are trying to attack him. And to think that some people walk across the street when they see me walking my dog.

14. Alex
    January 17th, 2008 at 11:02 pm

    @Just Me: You're probably right, but I'm more inclined to think that serious dog bites and attacks are reported.

    I'm not saying that all pit bulls are vicious or aggressive - your American bulldog, for once, seems like a sweetie pie.

    But as a breed, pit bulls are generally more apt to cause significant harm when it attacks/bites than other breeds.

15. jenny
    January 18th, 2008 at 12:11 am

    it is all up to the owners, if they treat the dog aggressively thats what it will learn, the breed has nothing to do with that
    the breed does however, have a lockjaw instinct, just as the rottweiler, bullmastif, etc.
    this just means when they bite, they dont let go, they keep going till the just cant anymore, thats the difference, thats the only reason they are more dangerous because when they do bite, they BITE. but just like the article, people get more bites from other breeds, its just theyre built differently

16. Rosi
    January 18th, 2008 at 6:11 am

    I think pit bulls are restricted in England. There are certain types of dogs which you're not allowed to breed, buy or sell, and you must keep them on a lead (leash) in public at all times and muzzle them... and I'm pretty sure pit bull terriers are on that list. They're thinking of adding Rottweilers to the list two since there have been several incidents recently where very young children have been mauled to death by them. A bit of an overreaction if you ask me: the dogs in question were bred to be guard dogs and attack any strangers. One of them was tied up in the garden constantly because it couldn't be trusted near humans. Now what kind of parent lets their child near a dog like that?

17. ted
    January 18th, 2008 at 9:55 am

    150 people die from falling coconuts? That sounds more like a worldwide statistic than a United States statistic. That's comparing apples to coconuts.

    I was walking my sister's Newfoundland, and we met the creepy guy walking his Rottweiler. It was the first time I'd ever heard her dog - who loved every dog he ever met - growl. He was reacting to the confrontational attitude of the Rottweiler.

    You can say it's not the fault of a breed, and that it has a lot to do with training. But pit bulls are so overbred, like our legless chihuahuas, that they're dangerous from the start. Couple that with an asshat who wants to lengthen his penis by owning a pitbull, and you've got trouble waiting to happen.

18. Brian
    January 18th, 2008 at 10:39 am

    From my own experiance I have found that it is not that they are more agressive than other breads (I used to be a utility meter reader and spent a lot of time in peoples back yards with out there knowlege), it is just that they are built like tanks. I had more problems with Labs, Dalmations, Dautshunds, and Chihuahuas than I ever had with Pitbulls (and I had a lot more pitbulls than other breeds). But the Pitbulls that were mean I would not even enter their yard while the nice ones were the sweatist dogs on the planet.

19. Vako
    January 18th, 2008 at 10:49 am

    If you find an asshole of a dog, all you have to do is look up and you will see an asshole holding the leash.

20. Vako
    January 18th, 2008 at 10:52 am

    addendumb;

    That is assuming that the asshole at the other end of the leash even bothered to put his/her dog on a leash in the first place.

21. Eric
    January 18th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    @ #3:

    Since I live in an area of the world where coconuts only appear in grocery stores, I'm more concerned about the two pitbulls down the street who mauled a little girl earlier this year.

    Pitbull owners are the animal world's equivalent of Hummer owners.

22. Ellie
    January 18th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    A friend of mine has a pit bull who is the sweetest, most loving dog I've ever met. Also very well mannered.

23. Adam
    January 19th, 2008 at 2:17 am

    Pitbulls, at the very least, have some very negative image problems. With all the breeds available, how can someone pick a pitbull and not have a weird agenda.
    It's like hunting with an uzi because you think it's a quality gun.

24. Alex
    January 19th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Or ask yourself this: have you heard of anyone being mauled to death by a chihuahua? Now, how about pit bull?

25. Krissy
    January 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    I have been raised around pit bulls, and to say that people that own them have a weird agenda....come on...I have never once been bitten or even growled at by one of our dogs or a friends dog. That being said I have been attacked by a golden retriever and had to have half of my faced stitched up..and it was a family dog. I have a pit bull and I would def get another when mine passes. They are great loving dogs that get along perfect will people of all ages and other dogs as well. But we have trained our dogs around other dogs and children and make sure we spend lots of time training them.

26. Malusa
    January 28th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    Ok, so this dude got his statistics on the "United States" from just two states: Texas and Nevada. The Texas stats are over 10 years old. And the Nevada report, from 1999 to 2002, doesn't even mention breeds... it does, however, say this:
    "Often people ask what breed of dogs are most dangerous? The question can be prompted by a high profile attack by a specific dog or may be the result of media driven portrayals of a specific breed deemed "dangerous"... Singling out one or two
    specific breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. This often ignores the true scope of the problem at hand."

    The truth is, there are no reliable population statistics for ANY breed, since that would require widespread breed registration. There are some small registries, but how many people actually use them? How many pit bull owners do you think are going to bother? How can we say that pit bull make up 3% of the dog population when A) we aren't even sure how big the dog population is, and B) we have NO CLUE how many of them are "pit bulls?"

27. Malusa
    January 28th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    Ok, so this dude got his statistics on the "United States" from just two states: Texas and Nevada. The Texas stats are over 10 years old. And the Nevada report, from 1999 to 2002, doesn't even mention breeds... it does, however, say this:
    "Often people ask what breed of dogs are most dangerous? The question can be prompted by a high profile attack by a specific dog or may be the result of media driven portrayals of a specific breed deemed "dangerous"... Singling out one or two
    specific breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. This often ignores the true scope of the problem at hand."

    The truth is, there are no reliable population statistics for ANY breed, since that would require widespread breed registration. There are some small registries, but how many people actually use them? How many pit bull owners do you think are going to bother? How can we say that pit bull make up 3% of the dog population when A) we aren't even sure how big the dog population is, and B) we have NO CLUE how many of them are "pit bulls?"

28. Jaime
    March 20th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    Let's just say we could somehow get rid of all the "pit bulls" in the whole world. Heck, let's throw in all the Rottweillers and Chow Chows.
    *POOF* They're al gone.

    Guess what you're left with? You still have all the people that made the mean dogs mean. You still have all the sickos that abuse animals. You still have all the ignorant people who don't know how to properly train and manage a dog.

    Those same people would just get another breed of dog, and ruin them.

    This is a PEOPLE PROBLEM, not a dog problem.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT