# Dog Attacks in the US&Canada from 1982 - 2012



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Read it all, this one sees to be very well balanced. 

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Dog+attack+stats+with+breed+2012.pdf

I copied this from the paper. How do you think about that Analysis? 



> Wolf hybrids, German shepherds, and huskies are at the extreme opposite end of
> the scale, almost never inflicting severe injury on adults––but it would be a huge mistake
> to assume that these seemingly similar patterns reflect similar behavior. They do not.
> According to an analysis by the late Robert Lewis Plumb, done at the peak of wolf
> ...


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

Thanks for sharing this. Very interesting read.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Good find! 

It's statistically difficult to analyze per capita data especially when guessing on the mix breeds. What balances this report is it includes GSD mixes.

One thing noted in the article that I have observed myself is the different attack styles. 

With pitties it's not only sheer numbers it's also the style of their attack that increases the severity of injuries. 

...and presa canarios and cane corsos, pitties on steroids.....

I'll stick with the herding group dogs.



Mrs.K said:


> Read it all, this one sees to be very well balanced.
> 
> http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Dog+attack+stats+with+breed+2012.pdf
> 
> I copied this from the paper. How do you think about that Analysis?


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

what a bunch of drivel.

so much patently wrong in this article.

a statistic is a gathering of a factual occurrence , not a speculation ", wolf hybrids were accordingly 60 times more likely to 
kill or maim a child than a German shepherd––and that was before even beginning to 
consider the critical behavioral distinctions" ? what ?

Bite statistics lodged for GSD include all bites - include "rightful" bites in the role of PD k9 , guard/security .
Bite statistics for GSD include all vaguely gsd-like dogs which end up in shelters with bite histories.

"They have three 
distinctively different kinds of bite: the guiding nip, which is gentle and 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" --- look out ! don't protect your throat with your arm or wrist - ! "it is typically accompanied by a frontal leap for the 
wrist or throat."

The GSD is supposed to have a wide, deep , consistent pressure bite which would hold an unruly sheep , keep it from running off . Nipping - not desirable . They weren't dragging it away from danger, they were keeping it under control so that you didn't have mayhem and sheep running all over the place. These continental sheep were not the same breeds as the flightier British breeds. They would challenge the dogs authority , be oppositional. 
A reactive bite given after many attempts to AVERT a CONFLICT is a fear bite, reactive, lacking confidence . Active aggression -- fight drive does not avert a conflict it takes charge . 
The fear reactive bite, the mainstay of bite problems on the forum is not prey drive it is defensive , fear, not stable .


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

In red, incorrect the article specifically states the following:



> Attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight are also​excluded.





carmspack said:


> what a bunch of drivel.
> 
> so much patently wrong in this article.
> 
> ...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

But we mustn't relax our guard with our dogs. Some of the crazy laws out there will have a dog PTS for bites that really don't do much damage at all. 

Our insurance company will pay rather than fight in court, and then drop us, and getting home-owner's insurance while having that dog, or any dog of that breed might not be reasonably possible. So we have to act the way people with Presas or pits _should_ act with respect to their dogs. We need to contain them securely when we are not there to supervise, and be aware all the time when we are supervising. We have to be an _active_ owner. 

I don't have a problem with fighting bad dog laws, and trying to shake the foundations of the way the laws are being applied, but I hope never with my own dogs. And I will do everything in my power to ensure that it never happens. I don't want it to be that we GSD owners are our own worst enemy.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Carmen, I wish you would use the quote function. It makes it really hard to decipher your posts sometimes, for me. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

Sure good to know that your toddler or baby has three different chances with a GSD. First a nip, then a drag, and then the for real reactive bite. Isn't google wonderful.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

We could have zero serious GSD bites and we'll still get sucked down with the pittie owners...it's already happening in GA.

(not that we shouldn't be responsible, we should, but especially in urban areas the pittie problem is bad enough already that it may be too late)




selzer said:


> But we mustn't relax our guard with our dogs. Some of the crazy laws out there will have a dog PTS for bites that really don't do much damage at all.
> 
> Our insurance company will pay rather than fight in court, and then drop us, and getting home-owner's insurance while having that dog, or any dog of that breed might not be reasonably possible. So we have to act the way people with Presas or pits _should_ act with respect to their dogs. We need to contain them securely when we are not there to supervise, and be aware all the time when we are supervising. We have to be an _active_ owner.
> 
> I don't have a problem with fighting bad dog laws, and trying to shake the foundations of the way the laws are being applied, but I hope never with my own dogs. And I will do everything in my power to ensure that it never happens. I don't want it to be that we GSD owners are our own worst enemy.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Do you have to use a break stick on GSDs?



Jack's Dad said:


> Sure good to know that your toddler or baby has three different chances with a GSD. First a nip, then a drag, and then the for real reactive bite. Isn't google wonderful.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

this "Bite statistics lodged for GSD include all bites - *include* " is not in the copied material provided by Mrs K.
I tried several times to open the link to read the article in full to see the context of the opening paragraphs about wolves, wolf-hybrid , huskies and GSD . However, I can not open the link - it keeps on coming up page unavailable.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

The quote I provided is a cut and paste that comes from Mrs. K's link which opens fine for me? 

Still, it's hard to critique an article if you haven't been able read it?

Big picture the data is always going to be a bit 'muddy' because of the guessing involved with mix breeds. However the author of the article went to lengths and explained the methodology (which are not included in Mrs. Ks snippet) to try to level the playing field as much as possible.

While I'm sure we cannot refer to it as a definitive study it's not entirely 'drivel' if you break it down into it's constituent parts (which includes many breeds).







carmspack said:


> this "Bite statistics lodged for GSD include all bites - *include* " is not in the copied material provided by Mrs K.
> I tried several times to open the link to read the article in full to see the context of the opening paragraphs about wolves, wolf-hybrid , huskies and GSD . However, I can not open the link - it keeps on coming up page unavailable.


----------



## trcy (Mar 1, 2013)

This happened today. This area is known for the pitts and drugs...

Authorities Looking for 4 Pit Bulls That Killed Jogger in Antelope Valley | NBC Southern California


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Every day.

I wonder if the deputy in this case was justified in shooting the dog.


----------



## trcy (Mar 1, 2013)

selzer said:


> Every day.
> 
> I wonder if the deputy in this case was justified in shooting the dog.


If you're referring to the above story he shot at the dog, but missed. They later se4rved a search warrant and 4 pitts were taken by animal control and two men were int he back of the police car. 

It's not mentioned in the online story, but on the air they said the pitts get out often and even tried to attack people riding horses.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

trcy said:


> If you're referring to the above story he shot at the dog, but missed. They later se4rved a search warrant and 4 pitts were taken by animal control and two men were int he back of the police car.
> 
> It's not mentioned in the online story, but on the air they said the pitts get out often and even tried to attack people riding horses.


The pits get out often -- being soft on this sort of crap nets a dead lady. Dead. A lady healthy enough to go jogging, dead because no one pays attention to out of control dogs until they kill someone. 

Is anyone else totally disgusted by this? Instead of slapping people with $100 fines for a first offense, and $1000 fines for a second offense of dog at large, and 3 strikes, and your out, you no longer get to have your dog back. So sorry. One time the meter reader might leave the gate open -- after that you check the gate before releasing the dogs. 

And now we have people going to prison for being irresponsible dog owners, and I really don't have much compassion for them, but it seems like we pander to people's inability to contain their dogs to the extent that people have this learned-so what? attitude. So society's answer will be once again to go after the breed. I think if the police or animal control has been called 3 times on these dogs, we should be going after them, not just the losers that own the dogs. Or, if we want to look at how to prevent this legislatively, we should not ban breeds of dogs, but we should make the penalties of dogs at large, significant enough to make a difference. And we need to ENFORCE the laws before someone dies.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

selzer said:


> And now we have people going to prison for being irresponsible dog owners, and I really don't have much compassion for them, but it seems like we pander to people's inability to contain their dogs to the extent that people have this learned-so what? attitude. So society's answer will be once again to go after the breed. I think if the police or animal control has been called 3 times on these dogs, we should be going after them, not just the losers that own the dogs. Or, if we want to look at how to prevent this legislatively, we should not ban breeds of dogs, but we should make the penalties of dogs at large, significant enough to make a difference. And we need to ENFORCE the laws before someone dies.


:thumbup:


----------



## Tank_N_Moose (Jul 23, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Do you have to use a break stick on GSDs?


I have had to. My GSD and Husky got into it and no matter what Tank was not letting go. Thank God I had one around.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

That was a WWIII kind of fight it sounds like, I guess it can happen but in the fights I've had to deal with no break sticks. 

I had two female labs go at it once but they didn't bite, hold, shake, they bite break off go for a re-attack in rapid succession, usually going for jowls, and ears. Another time it was two Old English Sheep dogs (intact females) one female just hated the other, she got out of her pen and it was on. The other female was pretty submissive and once pinned the aggressor let go. With pitties once they get a good bite they don't let go, that's the tenacity of the terrier in them. 

Remember the 'bull' part of their name came from the blood sport of 'bull baiting'. They sparred with bulls and upon gaining a bite on the bull hung on until the bull went down. More like the way lions attack their prey if you think about it. It's *not* about dominance even, it's about taking the opponent down for good, there's no real 'off' switch, hence the reason pitbull trainers often teach the use of a break stick. That I think is the difference.

...but if you want to compare GSDs to pitties....well I guess it doesn't matter there will be no breed specific legislation coming down the pike, it will be all 'dangerous dogs' and we'll have to get licenses and permits and pay extra fees and taxes to own GSDs too...it's probably already too late to stop it. :shrug:






Tank_N_Moose said:


> I have had to. My GSD and Husky got into it and no matter what Tank was not letting go. Thank God I had one around.


----------



## Tank_N_Moose (Jul 23, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> That was a WWIII kind of fight it sounds like, I guess it can happen but in the fights I've had to deal with no break sticks.
> 
> I had two female labs go at it once but they didn't bite, hold, shake, they bite break off go for a re-attack in rapid succession, usually going for jowls, and ears. Another time it was two Old English Sheep dogs (intact females) one female just hated the other, she got out of her pen and it was on. The other female was pretty submissive and once pinned the aggressor let go. With pitties once they get a good bite they don't let go, that's the tenacity of the terrier in them.
> 
> ...


It's just how Tank is when he fights. He doesn't get into fights often but when he does he doesn't play games.

We should think of GSD's to be in the same line as pit bulls. Everyone jumps on the pit bull train and then what? The next highest biter. Look at Italy. They banned A LOT of dog breeds because of that thought process. All the way down to Corgies. You don't have to be pro pit bull but you darn sure should worry about legislation coming your way and putting in work to stop it before it gets too far. It wasn't long ago GSD's were in the Pit Bull's place in the eye of the public.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

To a larger extent that's been my argument too for many years now (in red) BUT there's a huge difference and that's the way breeders and GSD (and dobie owner/breeders who had the same problem in the 70s) responded.

With a few exceptions most people did not try to convince the public that German Shepherds were perfectly safe cuddle bugs that were totally misunderstood. Same with the dobies. Instead the general push has been for responsible dog ownership, being realistic about what German Shepherd is and the responsibility of keeping these dogs contained AND properly trained.

Where as the pittie people (not all but a LOT of them) keep arguing that their dogs are misunderstood, absolutely sweet, always good and that it's ONLY bad owners with a few bad examples ruining the image of the entire breed. That simply is not true. I just got another one of those pittie feel good campaigns on my facebook the other day and felt compelled to comment that pitties are misunderstood in that they are a serious and powerful breed that is not for every family.

This whole 'feel good' campaign the pittie people have been pushing has now backfired because it only encourages more irresponsible ownership AND open the door to more horrible incidents involving pitties.

Secondly even at their worst German Shepherds don't have the same genetic drives/instincts as pitties and when pitties go bad they have a tendancy to go REALLY bad. So I don't like to compare them to german shepherds because they are NOT the same breed. 

There's a reason you don't see pitties in sheep herding trials or being one of the top dogs for military or police use. Sure an individual dog here or there but as a group they are not genetically cut out for that sort of work.

So I really disagree and don't understand why we would want to compare our German Shepherds to a dog from an entirely different ancestory, very different genetics and comformation to German Shepherds.

Though this really is becoming moot in many communities and states because they are passing stricter and stricter laws on all 'dangerous' breeds. GA passed a law last year and have another law on the legislative calander this year and while it doesn't single out pitties *it is because of pittie attacks.*

So now we are all headed down this rabbit hole with increasing liability for all of us because some people want to insist all dogs are the same and that pitties are misunderstood baby sitters instead of educating people on the importance of responsible dog ownership of a powerful breed like pitties. Frustrating as heck and I predicted this would happen.



Tank_N_Moose said:


> It's just how Tank is when he fights. He doesn't get into fights often but when he does he doesn't play games.
> 
> We should think of GSD's to be in the same line as pit bulls. Everyone jumps on the pit bull train and then what? The next highest biter. Look at Italy. They banned A LOT of dog breeds because of that thought process. All the way down to Corgies. You don't have to be pro pit bull but you darn sure should worry about legislation coming your way and putting in work to stop it before it gets too far. It wasn't long ago GSD's were in the Pit Bull's place in the eye of the public.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

All you have to do is to look at the numbers of fatalities. Those numbers can't even be compared.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Yes Mrs K and on top of that this is what a lot of the pittie people are trying to convince us of ....while dragging GSDs and other breeds into their unrealistic mess...it's so frustrating ... the only thing being misunderstood is that this is *not* some cuddly stuffed toy....


----------



## Tank_N_Moose (Jul 23, 2011)

The vocal group that sit there and say these dogs are complete angels and it's all the owner and what not are mostly a loud minority. Most of us keep our heads down and only really say something if things have gotten particularly offensive. We shake our heads at the "Fur mommy" types and try to correct them if we think they'll listen. Past that we use our dogs to make the example without being irresponsible about it.

The numbers do mean something. But not to the effect everyone likes to say. Things are way too skewed to get anything legitimate IMHO. You compare 4-10 DIFFERENT breeds together under one blanket and call it a day and your numbers will be high. This is on top of mutts that just have short hair and a blocky body. Lab boxer mix? Totally a pit bull! If we took every fluffy large dog with pointed ears and put them under the breed of "Shepherd" you'd see the same. Add that on top of the "Pit type" being an insanely over bred/owned dog and you have high numbers. You have 1000 poodles and 10,000 golden retrievers and the retrievers come out looking like the bad guy.

No one is dragging GSD's into an unlrealistic mess. Again: It has been happening over and over. When I was in the UK there were people rising up against rotties and GSD's like they were the bad guy all over again and saying the EXACT same thing about them as pit bulls. It happens and will continue to happen until education is put above banning everything outright. It got to the point I recieved a letter saying they might want to kick my dog out of housing depending on how things went just because GSD's were scary. My own father in law dislikes all three of my dogs and thinks they are going to lose it and tear into my child one day and they aren't even the same breed!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

yeah and that 'loud minority' has managed to at the very least enable the passing of more and more legislation which affects ALL of us who own 'dangerous breeds'. HB 685 passed GA with bipartisan landslide YES vote. There's more legislation on the agenda for this year and it's happening in communties and states around this country. I put most of the fault for that squarely on the fuzzy bunny slipper everything is rainbows cuddly wittle snuggly pittie people and people who think that it's some sort of moral imperative that we not pick on the poor 'pittie' people. 

Here on this board the 'loud' people advocate for protecting our dogs FROM society not the other way around and that's the problem. Hang around pittie rescues and a good many of them will call you a 'racist' if you even suggest their breed is a powerful breed with genetic instincts not for the faint of heart.

German Shepherds are NOT pitties, they are different but what is similiar is both breeds are not suited for every family and they require responsible ownership. That's what a lot of pittie people just can't get through their emotional skulls and I wouldn't care except now our breed is getting dragged into their mess.

Well they didn't want breed specific legislation against pitties so they are getting what they wanted then, GSDs, Rotties, Dobies all getting dragged into this because if you read the text of these laws it does = us getting dragged into these 'dangerous breeds' laws. 




Tank_N_Moose said:


> The vocal group that sit there and say these dogs are complete angels and it's all the owner and what not are mostly a loud minority. Most of us keep our heads down and only really say something if things have gotten particularly offensive. We shake our heads at the "Fur mommy" types and try to correct them if we think they'll listen. Past that we use our dogs to make the example without being irresponsible about it.
> 
> The numbers do mean something. But not to the effect everyone likes to say. Things are way too skewed to get anything legitimate IMHO. You compare 4-10 DIFFERENT breeds together under one blanket and call it a day and your numbers will be high. This is on top of mutts that just have short hair and a blocky body. Lab boxer mix? Totally a pit bull! If we took every fluffy large dog with pointed ears and put them under the breed of "Shepherd" you'd see the same. Add that on top of the "Pit type" being an insanely over bred/owned dog and you have high numbers. You have 1000 poodles and 10,000 golden retrievers and the retrievers come out looking like the bad guy.
> 
> No one is dragging GSD's into an unlrealistic mess. Again: It has been happening over and over. When I was in the UK there were people rising up against rotties and GSD's like they were the bad guy all over again and saying the EXACT same thing about them as pit bulls. It happens and will continue to happen until education is put above banning everything outright. It got to the point I recieved a letter saying they might want to kick my dog out of housing depending on how things went just because GSD's were scary. My own father in law dislikes all three of my dogs and thinks they are going to lose it and tear into my child one day and they aren't even the same breed!


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

The reason that people have responded differently is because of exactly what you're saying; they are not the same breeds. GSDs and Dobes are aloof by nature and very prone to human aggression. Much moreso than Pitties are, and because pits do make such good family dogs and love people in general, more people are going to speak out that their therapy dogs are being blamed for something that a police dog wants to do a whole lot more. No one is going to argue that their GSD is a lover because they simply AREN'T. My GSD couldn't be a therapy dog, but guess what? My pit could! It's been shown time and time again in statistics. 

Most of them aren't wrong. Most are trying to educate and inform responsibly, but a lot of it has to start with making people realize that not every pit bull they meet is going to kill them. There is a much larger blanket of hate over Pit Bulls right now than there ever were over dobes or gsds and that's a lot more hate and violence that you have to break down and try to explain. Not to mention the fact that this hate doesn't just cover one breed, it covers an entire TYPE of breed, so there are 4-5x as many examples of them out there, and they're all different. 

You can argue genetics all you want, but you're failing to realize that this isn't what they're being bred for anymore and that there ARE reputable breeders that are breeding dogs with no dog aggression, high thresholds, and medium to high drive with the tenacity they should have that live fantastically with other dogs and don't kill people.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Actually I ran into a trainer who is a bully breed lover (she has the Old English Bulldogs...not the same I know) but she does love all the bully breeds and she said that more and more pitties *are being bred for human aggression*. Additionally they seem to be as prone if not more prone to attacking children then other breeds.

*Both* laws that I've referred to here in GA are a direct result of pitbulls, (that were identified by the owners as pitbulls btw, they weren't unkown strays) attacking children. That's human aggression.

My good childhood friend was bite by a German Shepherd in the mid 1960s, it was one bite, (not multiple re-attack bites) that did require stitches and the dog was put down. No one second guessed it, the. dog. was. put. down.

The general public has had it with the 'nanny' dog and the they are 'only' dog aggressive lines from the pittie people and it's resulted in numerous communties passing different forms of legislation.







DJEtzel said:


> The reason that people have responded differently is because of exactly what you're saying; they are not the same breeds. GSDs and Dobes are aloof by nature and very prone to human aggression. Much moreso than Pitties are, and because pits do make such good family dogs and love people in general, more people are going to speak out that their therapy dogs are being blamed for something that a police dog wants to do a whole lot more. No one is going to argue that their GSD is a lover because they simply AREN'T. My GSD couldn't be a therapy dog, but guess what? My pit could! It's been shown time and time again in statistics.
> 
> Most of them aren't wrong. Most are trying to educate and inform responsibly, but a lot of it has to start with making people realize that not every pit bull they meet is going to kill them. There is a much larger blanket of hate over Pit Bulls right now than there ever were over dobes or gsds and that's a lot more hate and violence that you have to break down and try to explain. Not to mention the fact that this hate doesn't just cover one breed, it covers an entire TYPE of breed, so there are 4-5x as many examples of them out there, and they're all different.
> 
> You can argue genetics all you want, but you're failing to realize that this isn't what they're being bred for anymore and that there ARE reputable breeders that are breeding dogs with no dog aggression, high thresholds, and medium to high drive with the tenacity they should have that live fantastically with other dogs and don't kill people.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

How many more actual bites and attacks on humans from confirmed pitties (not mix/not strays - known dogs) is it going to take for the pittie community to realize that pitties DO attack humans?

Ultimately it's not going to matter because I think that this has gone for too long and some of the people who bought into the slippery slope argument thinking it would protect pitties from stricter and stricter laws...well guess what, all it did was widen the umbrella for whatever breeds are deteremined as 'dangerous'.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> How many more actual bites and attacks on humans from confirmed pitties (not mix/not strays - known dogs) is it going to take for the pittie community to realize that pitties DO attack humans?
> 
> Ultimately it's not going to matter because I think that this has gone for too long and some of the people who bought into the slippery slope argument thinking it would protect pitties from stricter and stricter laws...well guess what, all it did was widen the umbrella for whatever breeds are deteremined as 'dangerous'.


I do not deny the fact that gsd's have a high percentage of bites. That is the reality with powerful and popular breeds.

I am going a step further....how many more fatalities does it take for them to realize that dogs are not Nannies period!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Yes Mrs. K which is why I don't personally go around and post pics of GSDs in bunny suits on Facebook. I am often approached by people when out and about with my dogs. When they inquire about owning a GSD the first thing I tell them is they require a lot of socialization and consistent training and that they are not for everyone (oh and they never stop shedding you'd be surprised how many people stop right there LOL!).

In blue, you know everytime someone puts up some stats to show that pitties do attack people the stats are dismissed.

I'd like to see pittie people put up some concrete proof that pitties are exceptionally docile 99.99% of the time as is often claimed. See we are not making THAT claim about GSDs. 



Mrs.K said:


> I do not deny the fact that gsd's have a high percentage of bites. That is the reality with powerful and popular breeds.
> 
> I am going a step further....how many more fatalities does it take for them to realize that dogs are not Nannies period!
> 
> ...


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Actually I ran into a trainer who is a bully breed lover (she has the Old English Bulldogs...not the same I know) but she does love all the bully breeds and she said that more and more pitties *are being bred for human aggression*. Additionally they seem to be as prone if not more prone to attacking children then other breeds.
> 
> *Both* laws that I've referred to here in GA are a direct result of pitbulls, (that were identified by the owners as pitbulls btw, they weren't unkown strays) attacking children. That's human aggression.
> 
> ...


Any breed can have examples of dogs that are human aggressive. Your friend is wrong, pits are not and never have been bred for human aggression as a whole. Sure, there may be the stereotypical back yard breeder with the dobes and GSDs breeding for some aggression, but it is not common. I've worked in four shelters, been volunteering in rescue for years, and I've yet to meet a human aggressive pittie. There are PLENTY with low thresholds because of poor breeding which is resulting in attacks very frequently, but it isn't because they are human aggressive. Pits are the group of dogs that have the lowest thresholds of any dogs right now. And that doesn't go for all of them or what they should be and are being bred for, that goes for the pits on the streets and in shelters. 

It is completely true that there are numerous lines that are known for their dog aggression and that there are plenty of lines that aren't dog aggressive. My Am Staff breeder? Owns 6 intact AmStaffs in her home and has never had an issue, and frequently has new dogs coming and going. This can be said for most reputable AmStaff/APBT/Staffy Bull and American Bully breeders because dog aggression isn't a desirable trait in the breed. They're also breeding for higher thresholds than you will find on the street which lends it's hand to preventing attacks due to over stimulation and a threshold breach. 

I've known plenty of pit bulls that can't play with other dogs because they will get too excited and attack them. I've known plenty who will redirect on people or dogs if they're doing something exciting like tugging or fence fighting. That isn't because they are dog aggressive OR human aggressive. It's because their threshold is too low, which as I've said, is the BIGGEST issue with pit bulls these days, and it's due to backyard breeders having no idea what they are breeding. 



Gwenhwyfair said:


> How many more actual bites and attacks on humans from confirmed pitties (not mix/not strays - known dogs) is it going to take for the pittie community to realize that pitties DO attack humans?
> 
> Ultimately it's not going to matter because I think that this has gone for too long and some of the people who bought into the slippery slope argument thinking it would protect pitties from stricter and stricter laws...well guess what, all it did was widen the umbrella for whatever breeds are deteremined as 'dangerous'.


I've never seen anyone deny, nor am I denying, that pit bulls attack and kill humans? They do, just as many other breeds do. Last year two huskies attacked and killed a baby in my town. I don't hate Huskies because of it.

I'm not sure what you are saying has widened an umbrella for whatever breeds are determined as "dangerous"... but lately it's seemed as though BSL is changing a lot and backing off a lot. Ohio repealed their ban just last year which was fantastic news, and more and more cities ARE enacting stricter dangerous dog ordinances, which are FANTASTIC as they are not breed related and offer more severe penalties to those whom allow their dogs to run at large, those who have a dog with a confirmed bite, etc. regardless of breed. Huge fines, muzzle containment, insurance, etc. and I think that is what we need to make people more responsible and liable. 



Gwenhwyfair said:


> Yes Mrs. K which is why I don't personally go around and post pics of GSDs in bunny suits on Facebook. I am often approached by people when out and about with my dogs. When they inquire about owning a GSD the first thing I tell them is they require a lot of socialization and consistent training and that they are not for everyone (oh and they never stop shedding you'd be surprised how many people stop right there LOL!).
> 
> In blue, you know everytime someone puts up some stats to show that pitties do attack people the stats are dismissed.
> 
> I'd like to see pittie people put up some concrete proof that pitties are exceptionally docile 99.99% of the time as is often claimed. See we are not making THAT claim about GSDs.


What is wrong with putting a picture of a Pittie in a bunny suit on facebook? I dress my pittie up a lot and put pictures of him on facebook. People ENJOY making their "scary" dogs look less scary. Same reason people buy vests that say "pet me" or "friendly" for their GSDs. 

That doesn't mean I go out and tell everyone they should own a pit bull. I am placing a pit bull foster puppy right now and I'm having a terrible time doing it, because most families are not suited to own a pit bull, especially one with potentially high drives and low thresholds. 

Also, I don't know who is saying that pitties are docile 99.9% of the time. You seem to be finding the most extreme statements and examples and generalizing and it is not doing your argument any good to go to the other extreme.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

You don't have to look for extreme examples, they are in the news all the time. I feel for you people who have a breed that thugs and irresponsible people gravitate to. That sucks, and it makes it totally impossible for education to work. Education is like kryptonite to those types. If you use proper English, they are suspicious and if you try to tell them anything, they are offended. How in the world can you convince all of the pit-type-breed owners everywhere to contain their dogs, and supervise their children around their dogs?

I don't have an answer for your predicament. But I do know that the answer is not to dress them up and/or present them as harmless, baby loving dogs. I think you should all try again, because that tactic has failed miserably. And the only reason there are not breed bans is because owners of other formidable breeds are scared that the thugs and irresponsible people will just go to or go back to their breeds. And so we try to stand pretty much united against breed specific legislation.

Evenso, while GSDs and Rotties, and Dobermans are capable of significant bites and injuries, it is so much less common for them to seriously injure or kill people, that I am not sure BSL would ever get as bad with our breeds. The terrier in the pit bull type dogs has put an added dimension onto them. 

If we ban all the pit type breeds, and require spay/neuter for any current ones, they will be eliminated in 15 years. If all of the current pit owners owned, say a Malinois, would it be any better? I think it would be bad if they all owned GSDs, but I do not think it would be on the same plane as what is going on right now, because the dog's make up is very different. On the other hand, once you ban one type of dog, it would make it that much easier to ban others.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

It's funny because I was just thinking about Malinois this afternoon on the way home from an adoption for my foster pit puppy. They also seem to have a low threshold often and owner redirected bites are not uncommon. What if they were as popular as pit bulls?

As I said, people are not dressing up their dogs to convince anyone about the breed, or shouldn't be; that obviously isn't a good tactic. They (and I) am doing it so that people don't hate MY baby-loving pit bull based on the actions of others. 

And I say that completely honestly. Sir lived with a baby for 5 months and would love nothing more than to lay next to him and rest his head near his face when he cried. So I dress him up to make him look less scarey so that 50 year old uppety women in training classes, at the park, and the pet store don't think they need to make negative remarks to me and might be a little less worried about him. And it works. 

This is the first step to changing the public's perception so that BSL isn't necessary and they can target the real issues.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Danielle,

I have been on other animal/dog related forums and I deal with rescues and I don't know where the other poster came up with the 'loud minority' deal because in my dealings with pittie rescues well...frankly, a lot of them are just wacko.

Now you can split hairs all you want but the fact of the matter is what pittie people are doing is backfiring becaue the more they scream 
'nanny dog nanny dog' after the family pittie tears up one of the kids the more people get turned off. The more they try to prove how everyone is 'misunderstanding their little cuddle bugs' the *MORE* BSL and 'dangerous breed' legislation gets passed.

So what does that tell you? *That the pittie people have gone about this in the wrong way and are actually making things worse.*

Frankly I wouldn't care if it didn't have a tendancy to drag in other breeds which are having on the whole less problems.

I warned my pittie rescue friends about this years ago but I swear it's like talking with a brick wall they just can't seem to be realistic and more savvy about the underlying problems besetting the dang breed (I've already mentioned back yard breeders, poor mans tough dog, especially in urban areas it's even more of a problem)

I used to be pretty neutral about pitties but I'm getting burnt out on the 'poor us, poor pittie people' thing and I suspect based on how much legislation is getting passed I'm not alone in this.

You doth protest too much and as a result more and more laws get passed which seems to me to be exactly what the pittie people didn't want!



DJEtzel said:


> Any breed can have examples of dogs that are human aggressive. Your friend is wrong, pits are not and never have been bred for human aggression as a whole. Sure, there may be the stereotypical back yard breeder with the dobes and GSDs breeding for some aggression, but it is not common. I've worked in four shelters, been volunteering in rescue for years, and I've yet to meet a human aggressive pittie. There are PLENTY with low thresholds because of poor breeding which is resulting in attacks very frequently, but it isn't because they are human aggressive. Pits are the group of dogs that have the lowest thresholds of any dogs right now. And that doesn't go for all of them or what they should be and are being bred for, that goes for the pits on the streets and in shelters.
> 
> It is completely true that there are numerous lines that are known for their dog aggression and that there are plenty of lines that aren't dog aggressive. My Am Staff breeder? Owns 6 intact AmStaffs in her home and has never had an issue, and frequently has new dogs coming and going. This can be said for most reputable AmStaff/APBT/Staffy Bull and American Bully breeders because dog aggression isn't a desirable trait in the breed. They're also breeding for higher thresholds than you will find on the street which lends it's hand to preventing attacks due to over stimulation and a threshold breach.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Good post.

Malis don't worry me as much as the presa canarios and cane corso type dogs.

I saw a lady literally being dragged around petsmart by her presa it was only 5 months old. I stopped her to chat her up and get her to a trainer...at least...and she told me the dog was already challenging her and growling at her.

She hasn't called my trainer yet......




selzer said:


> You don't have to look for extreme examples, they are in the news all the time. I feel for you people who have a breed that thugs and irresponsible people gravitate to. That sucks, and it makes it totally impossible for education to work. Education is like kryptonite to those types. If you use proper English, they are suspicious and if you try to tell them anything, they are offended. How in the world can you convince all of the pit-type-breed owners everywhere to contain their dogs, and supervise their children around their dogs?
> 
> I don't have an answer for your predicament. But I do know that the answer is not to dress them up and/or present them as harmless, baby loving dogs. I think you should all try again, because that tactic has failed miserably. And the only reason there are not breed bans is because owners of other formidable breeds are scared that the thugs and irresponsible people will just go to or go back to their breeds. And so we try to stand pretty much united against breed specific legislation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Danielle, sorry if I came across too gruff.

I'm a 'it's about results' type of person and this sort of thing gets frustrating.

But sheesh, if dog loving person like myself is fed up with some of the wacky pittie stuff imagine how the average Joe and Jane public are responding?


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

I'm on my phone so I can't type much, but what you're saying makes absolutely zero sense.

We're trying too hard so BSL is happening because we're making it known? Uhm, no. I see you disregarded any other comments about how wrong you are when it comes to pitties. 

Fwiw, pittie rescues are a lot less wacky on average than other rescues. They're realistic and want them to be placed accordingly.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Actually, Rotties used to be just as bad and then there was a shift from the Rottweiler to the Pit Bull and meanwhile the Pit is much worse...

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

You're the one who is making zero sense.

I'm not talking about the pros and cons of the breed I'm talking about *HOW the pro-pittie people talk about and present the breed, defend the breed in an unrealistic way, market and campaign about this breed*. The more they yabber on about 'nanny dog nanny dog' after each pittie incident the more legislation is passed.

If you don't see the problem with that then I don't know what else to say.

The best thing that could happen to pitties is for them to become LESS popular, less known, reduce demand and the true serious pittie fanciers can then resurrect the breed. It's probably too late for that though because once laws get put in place it's really hard to get rid of them.

I think pitties are in a downward spin cycle of more legislation and it's going to drag other breeds in with it's undertow.

So I guess all I've got to say is 'How's that nanny dog marketing campaign thing workin' for ya?'....oh yeah more laws being passed is how it's working. 





DJEtzel said:


> I'm on my phone so I can't type much, but what you're saying makes absolutely zero sense.
> 
> We're trying too hard so BSL is happening because we're making it known? Uhm, no. I see you disregarded any other comments about how wrong you are when it comes to pitties.
> 
> Fwiw, pittie rescues are a lot less wacky on average than other rescues. They're realistic and want them to be placed accordingly.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> You're the one who is making zero sense.
> 
> I'm not talking about the pros and cons of the breed I'm talking about *HOW the pro-pittie people talk about and present the breed, defend the breed in an unrealistic way, market and campaign about this breed*. The more they yabber on about 'nanny dog nanny dog' after each pittie incident the more legislation is passed.
> 
> ...


What I'm saying is you are taking extreme people, not people that are actually involved and trying to support the breed, and turning it around on everyone. People calling Pit Bulls a nanny dog does not lead way to more legislation. Period. Attacks do. The nanny comments don't make a difference one way or another, but people feel better about their dogs and really DO educate people on what pit bulls were bred for by opening with it. Because they sure as **** weren't bred for human aggression. No one is saying that the dogs should be used as a nanny now or ever. You're missing the point. Real people involved in the breed do not misrepresent or market pit bulls. You're comparing apples and oranges, AND you're generalizing way too much. There are people who know what they're talking about and those who don't, but you're only focusing on the ones who don't or the vague comments you hear. 

I've owned the breed, I grew up with the breed, I've fostered the breed, I've worked with the breed, and I've trained with the breed. I do like to think that I have a little better of an understanding of them and knowledge of them than people who go out of their way to hate them.


----------



## Swifty (May 11, 2013)

DJEtzel said:


> What I'm saying is you are taking extreme people, not people that are actually involved and trying to support the breed, and turning it around on everyone. People calling Pit Bulls a nanny dog does not lead way to more legislation. Period. Attacks do. The nanny comments don't make a difference one way or another, but people feel better about their dogs and really DO educate people on what pit bulls were bred for by opening with it. Because they sure as **** weren't bred for human aggression. No one is saying that the dogs should be used as a nanny now or ever. You're missing the point. Real people involved in the breed do not misrepresent or market pit bulls. You're comparing apples and oranges, AND you're generalizing way too much. There are people who know what they're talking about and those who don't, but you're only focusing on the ones who don't or the vague comments you hear.
> 
> I've owned the breed, I grew up with the breed, I've fostered the breed, I've worked with the breed, and I've trained with the breed. I do like to think that I have a little better of an understanding of them and knowledge of them than people who go out of their way to hate them.


I don't think you can deny that many people seem to defend pit-bulls by making _unrealistic_ claims about how friendly, docile, and misunderstood the breed is, and this unrealistic defense is so _obviously_ unrealistic, in light of evidence to the contrary, that the public no longer listens to people like you who might actually know something about the breed.

It's like Peter and the wolf: stupid people have been saying that pit-bulls are the sweetest-dogs-who-would-never-attack-anyone for so long and now no-one listens to or believes pro-pit arguments. Only anti-pit people are seen as reasonable anymore. Since politicians like to ride on the tide of public opinion and be seen as 'on the side of good, reasonable people', this is actually a problem for the breed.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

Swifty said:


> I don't think you can deny that many people seem to defend pit-bulls by making _unrealistic_ claims about how friendly, docile, and misunderstood the breed is, and this unrealistic defense is so _obviously_ unrealistic, in light of evidence to the contrary, that the public no longer listens to people like you who might actually know something about the breed.
> 
> It's like Peter and the wolf: stupid people have been saying that pit-bulls are the sweetest-dogs-who-would-never-attack-anyone for so long and now no-one listens to or believes pro-pit arguments. Only anti-pit people are seen as reasonable anymore. Since politicians like to ride on the tide of public opinion and be seen as 'on the side of good, reasonable people', this is actually a problem for the breed.


I don't know people who make that unrealistic of claims and I don't know anyone who blows me off when I talk about Pit Bulls. 

I have not noticed that unrealistic of claims widespread. Just because some of these dogs are attacking does not mean that the breeds aren't great family pets and great with kids. It just means that there is an over abundance of poorly bred specimens that people are basing their facts off of, instead of what the breed actually is and what many people own. Maybe these crazy campaigns aren't known to me because the dog community doesn't follow them because they're not factual?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

DJEtzel said:


> I don't know people who make that unrealistic of claims and I don't know anyone who blows me off when I talk about Pit Bulls.
> 
> *I have not noticed that unrealistic of claims widespread*. Just because some of these dogs are attacking does not mean that the breeds aren't great family pets and great with kids. It just means that there is an over abundance of poorly bred specimens that people are basing their facts off of, instead of what the breed actually is and what many people own. Maybe these crazy campaigns aren't known to me because the dog community doesn't follow them because they're not factual?


Maybe, Danielle, that is because you do not believe the claims are unrealistic because of your bias for the breed.

The lady down south that got herself killed by the cane corso, she was not inexperienced, she owned one, she had a bunch of dogs, she was a vet tech, she loved animals, but she is dead now. 

That lady out jogging for her health and peace of mind -- dead now. 

Countless children, dead now. 

I think dressing dogs up to make them appear less dangerous, and referring to them as nanny dogs, and the punish the deed not the breed/ it's all in how they are raised, well I think that DOES hurt the breed because people who OWN them, let their guard down with their children, and lose their children, because they believe that it's upbringing, poor owners, poor breeding -- until you really spend the time to know what a good breeder is, how many of us BELIEVED we went to a good breeder to get our dogs? 

These people believed their dog was harmless. And now someone is dead. And now we are all one step closer to BSL that really will probably effect more than just dog-fighting breeds.


----------



## Swifty (May 11, 2013)

DJEtzel said:


> I don't know people who make that unrealistic of claims and I don't know anyone who blows me off when I talk about Pit Bulls.
> 
> I have not noticed that unrealistic of claims widespread. Just because some of these dogs are attacking does not mean that the breeds aren't great family pets and great with kids. It just means that there is an over abundance of poorly bred specimens that people are basing their facts off of, instead of what the breed actually is and what many people own. Maybe these crazy campaigns aren't known to me because the dog community doesn't follow them because they're not factual?


If you are not aware of it, then I'm not sure anyone on this board can convince you that the 'poor misunderstood pit-bull' seems to be the majority of the pro-pit message. There probably is an over-abundance of poorly bred specimens and that does not help the public perception of the breed, certainly, and makes your job of educating people about the potential of the breed that much harder.

lol, as I was typing this one of my neighbor's pit-bull puppy came running up to my property. Freakin' guy needs to fix his fence or someone is going to hit her


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

I've yet to see an unrealistic claim labelled in this thread, until Selzer's "it's all how you raise them" comment, which is the BIGGEST and I am constantly educating against that with luck. 

But there is nothing wrong with dressing your dogs up; plenty of members of this forum dress their GSDs up! The nanny dog comment? Great segway into education when used properly and not untrue at all. Punish the deed not the breed? Again, that's totally in the right. People should be punished for the way they set their dogs up to fail; not an entire breed of dogs who are not even meant to be the way they appear on the streets. 

And I don't think that because I'm biased; I think that because I know the breed. As I stated, I was in the process of adopting out my Pit Bull puppy and we turned down 4 homes because they didn't know what they were doing, had the wrong perceptions, and weren't well-suited to raise one.

Swifty; your neighbor, for example, is one of the people that should never own a pit bull. >.<

eta; I think perhaps it bothers you most because you aren't hearing the facts behind the pictures. I dress my pit bull up but don't think most owners would be suited to owning a pit bull and I tell them why. I use the term nanny dogs to describe how the breed originated with people, where it's gone, and where good breeders are trying to get it to go.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

This thread seems to have gone a bit off-track, but whatever, that's never stopped me from chiming in before.

So: I am _so_ conflicted about pitties.

I know a lot of pitties who are nice dogs with dedicated, responsible owners. I do think they often get unfairly tarred as "bad dogs" because they are the breed of choice for irresponsible owners and outright criminals. And generally I like them. My sister has a pittie who is a great dog. Pitties are about the only dogs that my Akita mix Crookytail can still play with, because he's grown up to be a bullying bodyslammer and he can only play with dogs who can take that kind of rough "fun" and give it right back.

On the other hand, they are a physically powerful, athletic breed and they do need a certain amount of skill from their owners to succeed. They're not for everyone. Unfortunately, because they're so overrepresented in city shelters, they're often the only breed available for people who want to adopt a dog locally. For that reason, we see a LOT of them in my neighborhood.

I know a lot of pitties who are set up to fail because they're adopted out to novice owners who have unrealistic expectations and inadequate information. One of these people recently took a newly adopted pit to our local dog park for "socialization." The pit attacked my friends' Great Dane, causing wounds that required dozens of stitches and triggering a series of unfortunate events (bad antibiotic reaction, drug-resistant UTI, and more complications) that kept the poor Dane in the hospital for weeks and nearly killed him. The vet bill's well into four figures and he's still not out of the woods.

The pittie owner wasn't a bad person, just clueless. She was honestly trying to do the right thing by "socializing" her dog. She just wasn't experienced enough to recognize the signs that her dog was going over threshold, wasn't strong enough to pull him off, and wasn't adequately informed about breed issues before she took him home. And I wish I could say that's an isolated case, but it's really only unique in the extent of the damage caused. Almost every day I could go to our dog park and pick out a pittie who really shouldn't be there.

So whose fault is that? Mainly the shelter's, IMO. If you are going to adopt these dogs out to the public, you need to be absolutely sure the public knows what they're doing. People cannot be responsible owners if they don't clearly understand what responsibility _means._

I don't have a real good answer for solving that, though. The level of assessment I'd like to see is beyond the capability of even the best city shelters; you just cannot tell that much about how a dog is going to behave in a home environment while it's in a high-intake muncipal shelter kennel. And foster-based rescues cannot possibly handle the sheer numbers of pitties that are constantly flooding the system. My rescue can't even adopt out the ones we've got now, and we cherry-pick the nicest of them.

It's a tough, tough situation.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

So this may be a stupid question, but since the PitBull ban was enacted in Denver and Dade county Fl, how many fatal dog attacks have there been???

If banning PitBulls does not work, then statistics would show that. There would continue to be people being killed by dogs of other breeds. Right??? I tried to google it before posting, but was unsuccessful if not a bit lazy. 

I am not saying that I agree with BSL, because I don't. But is there proof it does not work in those areas that have enacted it?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

And shelters, that's another thing. I know that pit-mix might net a dog a death sentence in a shelter, especially when pit bulls are banned in Ashtabula -- our only shelter, a private shelter run by volunteers, does not adopt out pit bulls to people in Ashtabula because of the ban, though there recently had some thing where the ban was partially listed for dogs coming from a shelter that passed a temperament test -- bit problem in my neighborhood. I doubt anyone has the background to properly assess the dogs, but I digress. 

Any how the dogs are often labeled, lab mix. An elderly couple brought home one of these "lab mixes" to save its life, and instantly were over-matched. They immediately started bringing the dog to training classes. And though they worked hard to help the dog, they were being chewed up. They had to return it. 

Some places just put pits down. That is very sad too.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

gsdsar said:


> So this may be a stupid question, but since the PitBull ban was enacted in Denver and Dade county Fl, how many fatal dog attacks have there been???


I don't think there are nearly enough dog attacks in the U.S. for statistics to be meaningful on that front. You'd run into all kinds of data problems -- inaccurate breed reporting (both ways: pitties being mislabeled as "lab mixes" or other euphemisms, and non-bully breed dogs being mislabeled as pitties), small sample size, short time period, variable fact patterns, etc.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Merciel said:


> I don't think there are nearly enough dog attacks in the U.S. for statistics to be meaningful on that front. You'd run into all kinds of data problems -- inaccurate breed reporting (both ways: pitties being mislabeled as "lab mixes" or other euphemisms, and non-bully breed dogs being mislabeled as pitties), small sample size, short time period, variable fact patterns, etc.


Oh I get that. But certainly there would be statistics or reports of fatal dog attacks, regardless of breed. That's what I wonder. Have ANY dogs killed people in breed ban areas since there inaction? 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

gsdsar said:


> Oh I get that. But certainly there would be statistics or reports of fatal dog attacks, regardless of breed. That's what I wonder. Have ANY dogs killed people in breed ban areas since there inaction?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


That is the same as asking if another breed has ever killed a person. Baby got killed by huskies in my town last year.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

No. In Denver, where PitBulls were/are banned. Did ANY dog, of any breed kill someone during the ban. In Denver. Did Denver have ANY fatal dog attacks during/since the ban? 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

There will always be "accidents" either due to negligent behavior, pure stupidity or simply because they do not know what they are doing, overwhelmed with the situation of an newborn etc. 
That being said, the numbers speak loud and clear. Yes there are fatalities with other breeds, I am pretty sure there have always been fatalities throughout history, BUT, when one breed basically kills almost as many, if not more people than all breeds combined than there is an issue. Whether we like it or not. 
Also, the Pit Bull is not the most popular breed in the US. Not sure what the black numbers are but if you go with the most popular dog breeds, Shepherds and Labs outnumber Pits by far and should have way more fatalities just because of the sheer amount of numbers, but they dont. 

So maybe, just maybe...there is a serious issue and people have got to wake up and take the dog for what it is: A DOG!!!

It isn't a Nanny, it is not a cute Baby...it is a powerful dog. Once you start treating it as such, things change for the better!

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

gsdsar said:


> Oh I get that. But certainly there would be statistics or reports of fatal dog attacks, regardless of breed. That's what I wonder. Have ANY dogs killed people in breed ban areas since there inaction?


Well, you'd have to check if any people were killed _before_ the breed bans, too, discounting any possible catalytic maulings (i.e., if there are no fatal dog attacks for 20 years and then one happens, the law is changed in response, and for 3 years afterward there are again no fatal dog attacks, that doesn't really tell you anything).

But the truth is I don't know. And while I don't particularly have a stance on BSL (because I'm selfishly and short-sightedly of the opinion that "it doesn't affect me, therefore I don't care"), I wouldn't place any great weight on the numbers if I _did_ know. I just don't think those stats could possibly say enough to be meaningful one way or the other.


----------



## Swifty (May 11, 2013)

Mrs.K said:


> There will always be "accidents" either due to negligent behavior, pure stupidity or simply because they do not know what they are doing, overwhelmed with the situation of an newborn etc.
> That being said, the numbers speak loud and clear. Yes there are fatalities with other breeds, I am pretty sure there have always been fatalities throughout history, BUT, when one breed basically kills almost as many, if not more people than all breeds combined than there is an issue. Whether we like it or not.
> Also, the Pit Bull is not the most popular breed in the US. Not sure what the black numbers are but if you go with the most popular dog breeds, Shepherds and Labs outnumber Pits by far and should have way more fatalities just because of the sheer amount of numbers, but they dont.
> 
> ...


Part of the problem with the weight of the statistics is that the type of person who tends to own a pitbull also tends to be the type of person who wants it to be a 'tough guy' dog, and fails to socialize it properly. Any dog that isn't socialized can be a danger to people, and it is unfortunate that pitbulls have the 'tough guy' image because of their role in dog-fighting.

What the 'pro-pit' people fail to take into account is that the reputation of the breed is directly related to the reason people pick that breed to own, which perpetuates the problem further. There is no realistic way to eliminate that reputation until and unless they're not used in dogfighting, imo.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

I don't think shepherd or labs do outnumber pits, but I may be wrong. What you have to realize is that "pit bull" isn't a breed and the breeds on the streets are any mixes of am staffs, Staffy bulls, American bullies, and American pit bull terriers. That's four breeds that are being lumped into one category. It'd be like mals, dutchies, GSDs and tervs all being lumped together.

Swifty hit that last paragraph's nail on the head. Though I don't think it's accurate at all to say that pro pittie people don't realize that. That's pretty much the reason pitties are the way they are and we ALL know that.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Mrs.K said:


> There will always be "accidents" either due to negligent behavior, pure stupidity or simply because they do not know what they are doing, overwhelmed with the situation of an newborn etc.
> That being said, the numbers speak loud and clear. Yes there are fatalities with other breeds, I am pretty sure there have always been fatalities throughout history, BUT, when one breed basically kills almost as many, if not more people than all breeds combined than there is an issue. Whether we like it or not.
> Also, the Pit Bull is not the most popular breed in the US. Not sure what the black numbers are but if you go with the most popular dog breeds, Shepherds and Labs outnumber Pits by far and should have way more fatalities just because of the sheer amount of numbers, but they dont.
> 
> ...


shepherds and labs for sure out number pits in AKC registrations, but I doubt that the number of pit bulls is accurately counted anywhere. Lots of people don't care about papers, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is even more true of Pit Bulls than of pure-bred GSDs or Labs, though there are a bajillion GSD and Lab mixes out there, not accurately counted unless a specimen bites someone. 

From the 1970-2000 I think that GSDs had way more actual population hands down, but it seems that pits are everywhere these days. I would not be surprised if the numbers are very similar, in the US anyway.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Swifty said:


> Part of the problem with the weight of the statistics is that the type of person who tends to own a pitbull also tends to be the type of person who wants it to be a 'tough guy' dog, and fails to socialize it properly. Any dog that isn't socialized can be a danger to people, and it is unfortunate that pitbulls have the 'tough guy' image because of their role in dog-fighting.


In addition to this, a large number of those dogs are owned by people who are, frankly, abysmal parents. In addition to being immersed in the rescue scene here, I spent about a year working juvenile court in Philly. I got to know some of those people way better than I'd like. It's absolutely no surprise to me that many of the victims of fatal dog attacks are kids, because it's not just the dogs who are undersocialized and unsupervised in some of those households.

I mean, we are talking about homes where children are stealing their mom's boyfriend's illegal handgun so they can sell it to another drug dealer down the street for money to buy socks and food for themselves and their siblings. I wish I were exaggerating.

There's a lot more going on than just the breed of the dog. And it bears noting, for good and ill, that some of the people producing these dogs _are_ attempting to breed for human aggression. Their goal isn't just dogfighting (although that's certainly the main one, at least in my area); they also want guard dogs for drug stashes and aggressive dogs for the intimidation factor. So they cross in Presas and Fila Brasiliero and whatever local junkyard dog is known for having a nasty temper.

Meanwhile responsible owners and breeders with sweet-tempered Staffies and APBTs get lumped into the same group as the nutballs who feed their dogs gunpowder to "make them mean."

It's a huge, complicated mess.


----------



## Swifty (May 11, 2013)

DJEtzel said:


> I don't think shepherd or labs do outnumber pits, but I may be wrong. What you have to realize is that "pit bull" isn't a breed and the breeds on the streets are any mixes of am staffs, Staffy bulls, American bullies, and American pit bull terriers. That's four breeds that are being lumped into one category. It'd be like mals, dutchies, GSDs and tervs all being lumped together.
> 
> Swifty hit that last paragraph's nail on the head. Though I don't think it's accurate at all to say that pro pittie people don't realize that. That's pretty much the reason pitties are the way they are and we ALL know that.


I don't know if everyone really makes that connection. I've read pro-pit blogs where authors make the point that any dog that isn't socialized properly can be a danger and separately claims that the type of person who tend to own a pitbull tend to also be an irresponsible owner, but then don't make the connection that the type of person who tends to own a pitbull _doesn't view all breeds as equally desirable_ for his macho manly image, which makes this a breed specific problem to which breed specific legislation is a legitimate solution. Rotties also have this problem, but to a lesser degree than pitbulls. GSDs won't be in this situation, imo, since they have such a sterling reputation as police dogs.

Since dog fighting is not a problem with a readily apparent solution, the only way to break up the fantasy of 'I'm a tough guy because I have a pitbull' is to stop people from owning pitbulls.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

selzer said:


> shepherds and labs for sure out number pits in AKC registrations, but I doubt that the number of pit bulls is accurately counted anywhere. Lots of people don't care about papers, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is even more true of Pit Bulls than of pure-bred GSDs or Labs, though there are a bajillion GSD and Lab mixes out there, not accurately counted unless a specimen bites someone.
> 
> From the 1970-2000 I think that GSDs had way more actual population hands down, but it seems that pits are everywhere these days. I would not be surprised if the numbers are very similar, in the US anyway.


The thing is, APBTs and American Bullies can't be registered with the AKC. Using one registry to guage is not even close to getting good statistics once you throw in the fact that most aren't registered because they're mixes of APBTs Staffys and Bullies.



Swifty said:


> I don't know if everyone really makes that connection. I've read pro-pit blogs where authors make the point that any dog that isn't socialized properly can be a danger and separately claims that the type of person who tend to own a pitbull tend to also be an irresponsible owner, but then don't make the connection that the type of person who tends to own a pitbull _doesn't view all breeds as equally desirable_ for his macho manly image, which makes this a breed specific problem to which breed specific legislation is a legitimate solution. Rotties also have this problem, but to a lesser degree than pitbulls. GSDs won't be in this situation, imo, since they have such a sterling reputation as police dogs.
> 
> Since dog fighting is not a problem with a readily apparent solution, the only way to break up the fantasy of 'I'm a tough guy because I have a pitbull' is to stop people from owning pitbulls.


Stopping people from owning pit bulls isn't a solution though, either. There are plenty of laws in place and organizations that bust dog fighting and I think it IS working. There is so much less now than 5 years ago. Banning pit bulls is going to result in all of the responsible owners losing their dogs, as with any other law. The people that shouldn't have will still keep them in their basements, privacy fenced backyards, etc. and still use them how they want. Just like that good ol' gun debate.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Oh no, I'm not taking just the 'extreme' people. Something about pitties makes people a bit wacky if you ask me. 

Now - there are a *few* groups out there that get it. One of them is in ATL, they go to back yard breeders and talk them out of breeding more pitties. Now THAT is type of thing pittie advocates should be doing, but you know what, they are definately in the minority. 

Instead we have how many TV shows about the 'poor misunderstood pitbull'?

Three or four, parolees and pitties, there was that show with 'shorty' and his little people crew, there was one with some biker dudes that would try to rescue pitties. Then you've got the never ending barrage of pittie propaganda on social media/internet. I've never seen anything like it before for any other breed and it's time for it to stop. Time for people to be realistic and pragmatic about these dogs.

When a report about a GSD biting or killing someone comes up (like the one in OH or the one in the UK) you hear all about it but I don't see Animal Planet starting a whole new series about 'Poor Misunderstood GSDs'.......







DJEtzel said:


> What I'm saying is you are taking extreme people, not people that are actually involved and trying to support the breed, and turning it around on everyone. People calling Pit Bulls a nanny dog does not lead way to more legislation. Period. Attacks do. The nanny comments don't make a difference one way or another, but people feel better about their dogs and really DO educate people on what pit bulls were bred for by opening with it. Because they sure as **** weren't bred for human aggression. No one is saying that the dogs should be used as a nanny now or ever. You're missing the point. Real people involved in the breed do not misrepresent or market pit bulls. You're comparing apples and oranges, AND you're generalizing way too much. There are people who know what they're talking about and those who don't, but you're only focusing on the ones who don't or the vague comments you hear.
> 
> I've owned the breed, I grew up with the breed, I've fostered the breed, I've worked with the breed, and I've trained with the breed. I do like to think that I have a little better of an understanding of them and knowledge of them than people who go out of their way to hate them.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Speaking with an ACO in ATL he said there are so many pitties coming in that cannot be housed with other dogs (DA) it causes already over crowded shelters to have to euth dogs of all breeds in shorter periods of time.

I think people who live in rural areas don't hear about this sort of thing because pittie overpopulation does seem to coincide with more urban areas.




selzer said:


> And shelters, that's another thing. I know that pit-mix might net a dog a death sentence in a shelter, especially when pit bulls are banned in Ashtabula -- our only shelter, a private shelter run by volunteers, does not adopt out pit bulls to people in Ashtabula because of the ban, though there recently had some thing where the ban was partially listed for dogs coming from a shelter that passed a temperament test -- bit problem in my neighborhood. I doubt anyone has the background to properly assess the dogs, but I digress.
> 
> Any how the dogs are often labeled, lab mix. An elderly couple brought home one of these "lab mixes" to save its life, and instantly were over-matched. They immediately started bringing the dog to training classes. And though they worked hard to help the dog, they were being chewed up. They had to return it.
> 
> Some places just put pits down. That is very sad too.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Exactly. 

When pittie people decry 'nanny dog, nanny dog' after a family's pit bull just maimed a child they loose credibility.

Additionally there's nothing there to be 'misunderstood' when a pittie attacks a kid. So implying that people just don't understand the breed is akin to telling them they are stupid for not having the same level of devotion to these dogs, no matter what the dogs have done. All that does is create the us against them mentality and more laws......

I mean when a bipartisan landslide vote on passing a new law, in the south, because of pittie attacks, happens in this day and age well.......











....that maybe you oughta rethink what yer doin'.





Swifty said:


> I don't think you can deny that many people seem to defend pit-bulls by making _unrealistic_ claims about how friendly, docile, and misunderstood the breed is, and this unrealistic defense is so _obviously_ unrealistic, in light of evidence to the contrary, that the public no longer listens to people like you who might actually know something about the breed.
> 
> It's like Peter and the wolf: stupid people have been saying that pit-bulls are the sweetest-dogs-who-would-never-attack-anyone for so long and now no-one listens to or believes pro-pit arguments. Only anti-pit people are seen as reasonable anymore. Since politicians like to ride on the tide of public opinion and be seen as 'on the side of good, reasonable people', this is actually a problem for the breed.


----------

