Dog attacks owner. Guess the breed.

[Kahns Krazy]

A woman's pit bull turned on her after she falls. Tears the living crap out of her. Needs to be subdued with a hammer.

How many more of these before pit bull proponents accept that these dogs are more unpredictable and dangerous than other breeds? When was the last time you heard about a retriever mauling its owner?

[Smails]

Maybe the little pup was just trying to protect her when she fell by chewing her face off..

Poor misunderstood dogs..

[boozehound]

It is very interesting how divisive of an issue this is. People who own Pit Bull breeds get very upset about the assertion that their pets are essentially an abomination, and I understand that to a degree. No one (outside of idiots who get dogs for the purpose of making them mean for 'protection') thinks that their pet is capable of harming them, or other people.

There really are too many instances of Pit Bulls attacking people though. Their seems to be an inherent flaw in their breed.

Personally I would never want a dog that I had even the slightest concern would ever attack me.

[Espe]

Part of the problem is that Pits get blamed for attacks when the dog that attacks looks like a Pit, but isn't

[MADXSTER]

I'm not a big fan of Pit Bulls to begin with but when things like this happen, I have to question the owner first.

Everytime I read the follow up stories, it seems that the owners aren't saints and have issues to begin with. Bad owners = Bad dogs. And it seems that bad owners prefer Pit Bulls more than any other breed.

[Snipe]

Pit bulls responsible for disproportionate number of attacks (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/27/pit-bulls-responsible-disproportionate-number-atta/) - Sign On San Diego


Parents generally place their children with baby sitters assuming the caregiver’s home is safe.

That is probably what the parents of 16-month old Destiny Marie Knox of New Albany, Miss., thought before Destiny was killed last month by the baby sitter’s pit bull. That attack was the nation’s third fatal mauling of a young child by a pit bull in a two-week period. All three children were in a baby sitter’s care.

When I see I Pit Bull I fear for my children. Here is a good reason why:


Well, it seems that families in greatest danger of pit bull attacks are those with infants or very young children.

The breed that developed into pit bulls was first bred in England, Ireland and Scotland in the 18th and 19th centuries. The initial purpose was to breed a very strong dog for herding cattle. As time went on, the strongest such dogs were bred for aggression and for the sport of dog fighting. To this day, pit bulls are the dog of choice for dog fighting. Dog fighting is illegal in Europe, the United States and many other countries, but it continues to take place.

Pit bull-type dogs only represent 2 percent of the dogs in the United States. However, of the number of people killed by dogs in the United States, the vast majority have been attacked by pit bulls and pit bull-type dogs. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2 percent of our population have experienced a dog bite. The vast majority of such bites are minor and only one out of six receive any type of medical attention, according to the CDC. Pit bull bites are, however, unique as virtually all such bites require medical attention. Pit bulls are also unique in their manner of attack. Other dogs target the victim’s hands, arms or legs. Pit bulls tend to initially target the victim’s face, especially in the case of infants and small children.

Which means even if my child survives his face is likely to be mauled. That is just dandy.

I like the way he sums it up:


Deaths caused by auto malfunctioning, such as recently occurred in San Diego County, are rare, as is death by dog bite. But, if it became known that the vast majority of such auto malfunctioning deaths occurred in a model that represented only 2 percent of autos, then I would expect that few people would consider owning such cars. Pit bull-type dogs are only 2 percent of the dog population but consistently – year after year – they cause the vast majority of dog bite/attack deaths. From an insurance actuarial viewpoint, this ratio is off the charts.

[Snipe]

I'm not a big fan of Pit Bulls to begin with but when things like this happen, I have to question the owner first.

Everytime I read the follow up stories, it seems that the owners aren't saints and have issues to begin with. Bad owners = Bad dogs. And it seems that bad owners prefer Pit Bulls more than any other breed.

I think you are on to something. Getting a Pit Bull is not a responsible thing to do. So it goes that irresponsible people own Pit Bulls which is not a great combination.

[Smails]

Another problem is that people tend to buy pitbulls as more of a status symbol than anything else. "hey look at how tough I am...I have a pitbull"

I blame Nino Brown and his two Rotweillers (sp?) for the swoon of urban youths using dogs as a means to show someone how big their johnson is.

[bobbiemcgee]

Against the law to own a pit bull in Denver. Thought this was true in most major cities...guess not.

[blobfan]

I'm not a big fan of Pit Bulls to begin with but when things like this happen, I have to question the owner first.

Everytime I read the follow up stories, it seems that the owners aren't saints and have issues to begin with. Bad owners = Bad dogs. And it seems that bad owners prefer Pit Bulls more than any other breed.

You can't take an active breed like that, walk it for 30 minutes 3 times a week, and pretend you are giving it enough exercise. And it's not enough to leave it to run in circles in your back yard, no matter how big the yard is. Most dogs are under-exercised and poorly disciplined. The problem with pit bulls and rotties and similar breeds is they are less able to stand the inactivity.

You can accuse me of watching too much dog whisperer, and you might be right, but a lot of what Cesar Milan says is very true to my personal experience with dogs so I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. Dogs are nomadic pack animals. Evolution led them to spend most of the day on their feet, following a leader. Take that activity away from them and they act out. Add that to a submissive owner and the dog is going to act out violently.

It really is the owner, not the breed. If a terrior could damage a person, it might. But because of their small size and comparative strength, they tend to destroy furniture, not people or other dogs. It's the attacks on living beings that make the paper, not the chewed up kitchen table. But the impulse comes from the same place.

[Smails]

Very much agree Bfan. 90% of dogs that I have known at sometime or another have been agitated enough to take a nip at someone or something. The problem with pits is that they don't take nips, they attack until the victim is or the dog is subdued. Ever hear of a pit bull biting somone and then stopping?

[Snipe]

The Deadliest Dogs (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html)


Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

It does seem like they are inherently dangerous.

[Snipe]

It really is the owner, not the breed.

I can't completely discount that factor. Maybe we should look at the demographics of the people who own Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, & Presa Canarios.

[PM Thor]

Part of the problem is that Pits get blamed for attacks when the dog that attacks looks like a Pit, but isn't

Very true. 25 years ago, the most reported dog attack was by German Shepherds, but part of the problem was people misidentifying the breed.

I bet dollars to donuts that if you took a pit, a rot, bull terrier,and a few other breeds in a lineup, the majority of common citzens wouldn't know which is which.

I HATE dayton.

[xeus]

Against the law to own a pit bull in Denver. Thought this was true in most major cities...guess not.

It's against the law in Cincinnati too.

[xeus]

I bet dollars to donuts that if you took a pit, a rot, bull terrier,and a few other breeds in a lineup, the majority of common citzens wouldn't know which is which.

I HATE dayton.

You would win that bet Thor:

Find the American Pitbull Terrier (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html)

[xeus]

I'm not a big fan of Pit Bulls to begin with but when things like this happen, I have to question the owner first.

Everytime I read the follow up stories, it seems that the owners aren't saints and have issues to begin with. Bad owners = Bad dogs. And it seems that bad owners prefer Pit Bulls more than any other breed.

Irresponsible ownership is generally the root of the problem with vicious and dangerous dogs, regardless of the breed.

[Lamont Sanford]

90% of dogs that I have known at sometime or another have been agitated enough to take a nip at someone or something. The problem with pits is that they don't take nips, they attack until the victim is or the dog is subdued. Ever hear of a pit bull biting somone and then stopping?

But I heard the pit had just started to turn his life around...

[blobfan]

I can't completely discount that factor. Maybe we should look at the demographics of the people who own Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, & Presa Canarios.
Demographics is only half the story. Demographics don't tell you if the owner is dominant enough to guide highly active, aggressive dogs. I've seen athletic, upper-middle-class guys get pulled down the street by average sized dogs. If you want to lead your dog, lead it. Don't follow it down the street at the end of a long leash. I'll give you a guess as to who is the leader in that train, and it isn't the two-legged guy in the back.

Demographically, that guy might look like the perfect owner. But he's showing the dog that the dog runs the house, not the man.


Irresponsible ownership is generally the root of the problem with vicious and dangerous dogs, regardless of the breed.

We really need to extend the definition of 'irresponsible' in this case. We let people have pit bulls if they are licensed and have additional insurance, but we'd see better results if we made them take ownership classes and submit proof that they've had the dog trained, properly socialized and exercise it regularly.

My neighbor has a Collie that after years of being a sweet, relatively quiet dog, has developed a nasty disposition and excessive barking habit. What changed? The owner has gotten older. She no longer takes it on walks and regularly ties it to a short chain staked into her front yard, fully exposed to the elements. By all appearances that's the only thing that has changed in that dogs life and it was enough to turn it from a nice pet into a neurotic nuisance.

[Snipe]

Irresponsible ownership is generally the root of the problem with vicious and dangerous dogs, regardless of the breed.

SPCA Says "Culture Of Toughness" Behind Pit Bulls (http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/SPCA-Says-Culture-Of-Toughness-Behind-Pit-Bulls/x3VwBihcIEehlBraqE3vQQ.cspx)


Mahlman also points to a study released last year by Children's Hospital that says pit bull owners tend to have larger criminal histories than other dog owners.

He says that backs up his theory of pit bulls being part of a "culture of toughness."

I guess much of it is in the demographics. The Pit Bull stats still are shocking to look at. Maybe that is also demographically based.

Maybe we shouldn't let everyone own a dog.

[blobfan]

Chow chow is one of the top 10 most vicious dogs. Does this furball look like a dangerous dog?
http://www.thebestofbreeds.com/catalog/images/Chow.jpg
In 2000 a baby was mauled by the family Pomeranian and died. The Pom was bred as a watch dog. ANY breed dog can kill given the opportunity and motivation. We forget too easily that these are wild animals at heart.

[xeus]

My neighbor has a Collie that after years of being a sweet, relatively quiet dog, has developed a nasty disposition and excessive barking habit. What changed? The owner has gotten older. She no longer takes it on walks and regularly ties it to a short chain staked into her front yard, fully exposed to the elements. By all appearances that's the only thing that has changed in that dogs life and it was enough to turn it from a nice pet into a neurotic nuisance.

You should contact Dogs Deserve Better about your neighbor's dog. Bitch.

Dogs Deserve Better (http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/)

[boozehound]

You should contact Dogs Deserve Better about your neighbor's dog. Bitch.

Dogs Deserve Better (http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/)

I assume that you are talking about blobfan's neighbor. Not blobfan...;)

[Snipe]

I assume that you are talking about blobfan's neighbor. Not blobfan...;)

hehehe

[xeus]

I guess much of it is in the demographics. The Pit Bull stats still are shocking to look at. Maybe that is also demographically based.

Maybe we shouldn't let everyone own a dog.

Much of what is "in the demographics"? How are the pit bull stats "demographically based"? I'm not sure what you are saying, or rather, trying to say.

[xeus]

I assume that you are talking about blobfan's neighbor. Not blobfan...;)

Yeah. Oops. Sorry blobfan.

[Snipe]

Much of what is "in the demographics"? How are the pit bull stats "demographically based"? I'm not sure what you are saying, or rather, trying to say.

The demographics of the people who own Pit Bulls. What type of people get Pit Bulls? Not everyone wants a Pit Bull. I don't like them and am afraid of them. I don't think it is a responsible choice for a person to make in selecting a dog. So if people who are not responsible get a dangerous dog I think it is a deadly combination.


Mahlman also points to a study released last year by Children's Hospital that says pit bull owners tend to have larger criminal histories than other dog owners.

He says that backs up his theory of pit bulls being part of a "culture of toughness."

Pit Bull owners tend to have larger criminal histories than other dog owners. That speaks to what I call the demographics of Pit Bull owners. I would like to see that study and see what other factors often associate with Pit Bull ownership.

The "Culture of toughness" also is a factor. People are buying these dogs because they want a badass mean dog. What type of person does that? Not a responsible dog owner.

These aren't the same people that buy Shephards or Labs. I bet in general they have different backgrounds and different motivations for dog ownership. Bitch.

[boozehound]

Much of what is "in the demographics"? How are the pit bull stats "demographically based"? I'm not sure what you are saying, or rather, trying to say.

I'm not touching this one...


Yeah. Oops. Sorry blobfan.

I agree with you 100% about the neighbor. I'm not a fan of chaining dogs, unless it is a long chain for a very short period of time maybe. It sure as hell isn't a way to contain a dog on a regular basis.

I grew up in a house that always had between 3-4 big dogs around the house and they were treated better than a lot of people. They had a fenced in yard to run around and they went wherever they wanted in the house, slept on couches and beds. They got any medical procedures needed regardless of cost. That has shaped my view on how dogs, and pets in general, should be treated.

Different people view dogs in very different ways, though. Some people view dogs as a means to an end, i.e. protection.

The difficult thing is that if you took the dogs away from everyone who chained them or left them outside 24/7, etc. there would be a lot of dogs without homes.

[blobfan]

You should contact Dogs Deserve Better about your neighbor's dog. Bitch.

Dogs Deserve Better (http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/)
I felt like a schmuck doing it but I sent an anonymous letter to her with some material about the dangers of training. I didn't want to give my name because I didn't want to start a neighborhood feud but I tried to temper the letter and not sound like I was accusing her of being a terrible dog owner. After all, she's a little old lady that lives alone. And not everyone understands the damage chaining can do to a dog. Even if you give them enough length to run, if you put them in an exposed area you can still cause them problems.

I'm not sure yet if it had any effect on how she keeps the dog since I sent the letter at the end of summer. It took me all summer to decide to suck it up and just be a schmuck and send the letter.

Yeah. Oops. Sorry blobfan.

No worries. I didn't take it as a personal attack.

[xubball93]

My golden retrievers mauled a pair of socks today when I was at work. I take that as their memo to me for not walking them and not being home much over the holidays.
Got to agree with Blobfan and Cesar on this one: exercise, food and affection, in that order, makes for a happy dog. Works for men too but you gotta change the order! ;)

[xeus]

Getting a Pit Bull is not a responsible thing to do.

Why is getting a pit bull "not a responsible thing to do" ?

(this will be good ...)

[waggy]

Why is getting a pit bull "not a responsible thing to do" ?

(this will be good ...)

So what is your angle? Is it bad owners, or bad dogs? Or both?

[nuts4xu]

I just know my dog has never bitten anyone, let alone mauled anyone's face off. In fact, I would bet no man has ever been mauled by my dog's breed in their history.

[PM Thor]

I just know my dog has never bitten anyone, let alone mauled anyone's face off. In fact, I would bet no man has ever been mauled by my dog's breed in their history.

You must own a miniature dog then, because every breed that is of signifigant size whatsoever has had an instance where a dog freaks out.

I had a chow that was as sweet as you can get, but we owned two dogs at the time.

When the two dogs got into it, like any two dogs will do from time to time, the chow accidentally ripped open my Mas foot. She had to get about 20 staples, and the dog wouldn't go near her for about a week, it felt so guilty.

Sometimes it happens, blaming the dog for every instance isn't really fair.

I HATE dayton.

[Jumpy]

I have two mutts, both came from a rescue foundation and they said that they both were lab/boxer mixes. I know damn well that neither one of them is a lab/boxer mix. Our older dog is most likely a lab/bull terrier mix of some sort and the other is a lab/rhodesian mix. Both are very well behaved dogs around people (around each other they wrestle and sound like hounds from hell, but what can you do) and I trust them around even the youngest of my nieces/nephews under my supervision.

I would never leave one of my dogs alone with a child not because I don't trust them, but I can't guarantee that the child won't do something to provoke the dog, either intentionally or unintentionally. Like others before me have said, even with the best training in the world dogs are inherently wild and can lash out for any number of reasons. People/children who don't understand dog mentality can and often unwittingly cross canine boundaries that they didn't even know exist.

I don't want to seem as though I believe dogs are infallible, but the vast majority of instances where dogs attack people, its because a person is at fault. Either its the owner who didn't train the dog properly or the victim who didn't understand how to interact with a dog.

[Xman95]

Damn you, Michael Vick. This is all your fault!

[gladdenguy]

I hate dogs. They shed, they smell, they dirty homes.
If you have a dog, yes, I think you are one step closer to being dirty.

[blobfan]

I just know my dog has never bitten anyone, let alone mauled anyone's face off. In fact, I would bet no man has ever been mauled by my dog's breed in their history.

Do you have a Pug? It cracks me up that people get nervous around mine because I don't think they could bite someone even if they wanted to. It's their tongues you need to watch out for. But I still make them sit before I let strangers pet them and make them walk behind me when we go for walks. They know how the pecking order works.

By the way, the size of the breed doesn't necessarily affect aggressiveness, just the extent of the damage they can cause. Jack Russell Terriers are very possessive and have been known to attack other animals. I know personally of one that killed the other dog in the house. Knowing the owners, I'm quite sure it wasn't getting regular exercise. Nice people but not the most responsible.

[Lamont Sanford]

I hate dogs. They shed, they smell, they dirty homes.
If you have a dog, yes, I think you are one step closer to being dirty.

Uhh ohhh. I anticipate a not-so-nice response from xeus in 5, 4, 3, ....

[Kahns Krazy]

Deaths caused by auto malfunctioning, such as recently occurred in San Diego County, are rare, as is death by dog bite. But, if it became known that the vast majority of such auto malfunctioning deaths occurred in a model that represented only 2 percent of autos, then I would expect that few people would consider owning such cars. Pit bull-type dogs are only 2 percent of the dog population but consistently – year after year – they cause the vast majority of dog bite/attack deaths. From an insurance actuarial viewpoint, this ratio is off the charts.


I think this is a good point. All dogs have owners, just like all cars have drivers. Drivers are the cause of all accidents. If there are no drivers, the car just sits in the driveway. When cars like the Corvair or the Pinto are manufactured and cause more or more dangerous accidents within the same set of drivers, we address the issue.

I have no doubt that in most cases, the temper of the pit is aggravated by the owner's actions or lack of actions. However, the fact that the dog is a pit seems to increase the liklihood of an incident. I can't believe that there is somehow a direct correlation between pit bull owners and bad dog ownership that makes the number of pit bull incidents strictly an owner issue.

[Kahns Krazy]

Against the law to own a pit bull in Denver. Thought this was true in most major cities...guess not.


It's against the law in Cincinnati too.

Xeus, you are certainly in closer touch with the dog community, but I believe there are still exceptions to the pit bull law in Cincinnati. If you owned a pit when the law went into effect, you could register and get a tag and still legally own your pit.

Regardless, I believe that number to have been under 100 registered pits when the law went into effect, and I'm sure there are fewer now.

[xeus]

Xeus, you are certainly in closer touch with the dog community, but I believe there are still exceptions to the pit bull law in Cincinnati. If you owned a pit when the law went into effect, you could register and get a tag and still legally own your pit.

Regardless, I believe that number to have been under 100 registered pits when the law went into effect, and I'm sure there are fewer now.

As of this past summer, according to the CPD, there were NO legally registered pits in Cincinnati. The CPD claimed that no one (of fewer than 100 who registered) had kept up with the annual re-registration requirement. However, at least 1 or 2 people were able to show that they had in fact re-registered their dog according to the law, so we do have a couple "legal" pits in the city. And of course, the pits in "custody" at the SPCA on Colerain Ave are legal.

Kahns, you probably know that we have a mutual friend who is very involved with this issue.

[xeus]

They shed, they smell, they dirty homes.


... says the west sider.

[nuts4xu]

I hate dogs. They shed, they smell, they dirty homes.
If you have a dog, yes, I think you are one step closer to being dirty.

I own a toy poodle (as in the size--smaller than a minature but larger than a tea cup--they typically average 8-15 lbs--and not a plastic version). Poodles are one a few number of breeds that don't shed. They actually have to have regular hair cuts, regular baths, and are about as intelligent as they come.

Labradoodles became so popluar because the expensive versions bred very intelligent poodles with very friendly and affectionate labs. Labs by the nature of their breed are some of the friendliest dogs you can own, and Poodles are one of the smartest breeds available.

It is true there are many dogs that shed, smell bad, and dirty homes. Most of the ones that smell will tend to dirty homes. Wet weather sucks for big dogs that like to run and don't mind the mud. But if those issues bother you, there are still many breeds, sizes, and types of dogs that will not cause any of those problems.

I should know.... I am the proud owner of a toy poodle!

[Snipe]

Why is getting a pit bull "not a responsible thing to do" ?

(this will be good ...)

Why is getting a pit bull "not a responsible thing to do"? Just summing up the other quotes and sources from this post alone should tell the tale.


Pit bull-type dogs only represent 2 percent of the dogs in the United States. However, of the number of people killed by dogs in the United States, the vast majority have been attacked by pit bulls and pit bull-type dogs. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2 percent of our population have experienced a dog bite. The vast majority of such bites are minor and only one out of six receive any type of medical attention, according to the CDC. Pit bull bites are, however, unique as virtually all such bites require medical attention. Pit bulls are also unique in their manner of attack. Other dogs target the victim’s hands, arms or legs. Pit bulls tend to initially target the victim’s face, especially in the case of infants and small children.


Deaths caused by auto malfunctioning, such as recently occurred in San Diego County, are rare, as is death by dog bite. But, if it became known that the vast majority of such auto malfunctioning deaths occurred in a model that represented only 2 percent of autos, then I would expect that few people would consider owning such cars. Pit bull-type dogs are only 2 percent of the dog population but consistently – year after year – they cause the vast majority of dog bite/attack deaths. From an insurance actuarial viewpoint, this ratio is off the charts.


Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

Do I really need to spell it out? The Pit Bull is a statistical nightmare of risk. Pay attention to the fact that "In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question". Some of these dogs are perfectly fine, or seem so, and then they snap. Lots of dogs can snap, but when a Pit Bull snaps they tend to maul your face off. The statistics seem to show Pitt Bulls as a ticking time bomb. 2% of the dogs are causing the majority of the damage. I know of a child that got his face mauled. It wasn't his dog. I live in fear of these beasts.

In my opinion buying a dog that has a large statistical chance of "snapping" and mauling or killing someone is "not a responsible thing to do". The statistics say quite loudly that these dogs are different and that they are ticking time bombs.

This is not to take away the owners behavior, as many have noted:



I'm not a big fan of Pit Bulls to begin with but when things like this happen, I have to question the owner first.

Everytime I read the follow up stories, it seems that the owners aren't saints and have issues to begin with. Bad owners = Bad dogs. And it seems that bad owners prefer Pit Bulls more than any other breed.


Another problem is that people tend to buy pitbulls as more of a status symbol than anything else. "hey look at how tough I am...I have a pitbull"

I blame Nino Brown and his two Rotweillers (sp?) for the swoon of urban youths using dogs as a means to show someone how big their johnson is.

SPCA Says "Culture Of Toughness" Behind Pit Bulls (http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/SPCA-Says-Culture-Of-Toughness-Behind-Pit-Bulls/x3VwBihcIEehlBraqE3vQQ.cspx) from December 2007 - Cincinnati 9 News


The Hamilton County SPCA says it has uncovered a disturbing trend involving pit bulls in local neighborhoods.

It turns out they seize most of the dogs from just a few neighborhoods.

It's a story you saw first on 9News.

The numbers are startling – just three Hamilton County neighborhoods, and already nearly 250 pit bulls seized this year are from those areas alone.

An SPCA official says he thinks he knows why.

And this is his hypothesis:



The operating manager of the SPCA says it's because of a "culture of toughness."

"Pit bull dogs in many cases appeal to some people who are not interested in the dog as a pet, but as a status symbol," said Mahlman. "They want a 'bad' dog, impressive dog, a mean dog."

....

Mahlman also points to a study released last year by Children's Hospital that says pit bull owners tend to have larger criminal histories than other dog owners.

He says that backs up his theory of pit bulls being part of a "culture of toughness."

It says something about the demographics of Pit Bull ownership that the Children's Hospital actually studied the demographics of Pit Bull owners and released the findings.

I think that buying a Pit Bull is not a responsible thing to do.
I think that people that are not responsible buy Pit Bulls.
I think that is a dangerous combination.

[xudash]

Why is getting a pit bull "not a responsible thing to do"? ..............
I think that buying a Pit Bull is not a responsible thing to do.
I think that people that are not responsible buy Pit Bulls.
I think that is a dangerous combination.

Allow me to apply this thought process to Bassett Hounds, replacing 'responsible' with "sensible."

We once had a Bassett Hound (named Flounder) who was the most incorrigible four-legged creature to ever walk the face of this planet. The dog also was prone to attempts at suicide - he repeatedly went after whole bags of Hershey chocolates, etc. He wasn't phased most of the time, but he had to have his stomach pumped after eating some Kool-Aid mix and an entire prescription of his meds once.

I love dogs, but some breeds will send you to your grave earlier than expected, or wanted.

[BandAid]

I should know.... I am the proud owner of a toy poodle!

Do you own a blue prius?

[xavierj]

If you breed any large dog to be aggressive they will be. The problem is that the Pit usually has much stronger jaws than most dogs so it it gets a hold of you in a rage you are up shit creek. Most dogs that get aggressive you can handle, but the Pit is a different story. With that said my wife's uncle has been a vet for 40 years and has never had a problem with a Pit. That is probably because most of his clients are pretty responsible. He did say that the only dog that scares the shit out of him regardless of how it is treated is the Chow.

[gladdenguy]

Uhh ohhh. I anticipate a not-so-nice response from xeus in 5, 4, 3, ....

I did it on behalf of my xeus.

[Fred Garvin]

Labradoodles: that's so gay.

[blobfan]

Allow me to apply this thought process to Bassett Hounds, replacing 'responsible' with "sensible."

We once had a Bassett Hound (named Flounder) who was the most incorrigible four-legged creature to ever walk the face of this planet. The dog also was prone to attempts at suicide - he repeatedly went after whole bags of Hershey chocolates, etc. He wasn't phased most of the time, but he had to have his stomach pumped after eating some Kool-Aid mix and an entire prescription of his meds once.

I love dogs, but some breeds will send you to your grave earlier than expected, or wanted.

That illustrates how little real chocolate there actually is in that candy. There are some dog owners that claim to regularly feed their dog milk chocolate with no ill side effects.

[Smails]

Allow me to apply this thought process to Bassett Hounds, replacing 'responsible' with "sensible."

We once had a Bassett Hound (named Flounder) who was the most incorrigible four-legged creature to ever walk the face of this planet. The dog also was prone to attempts at suicide - he repeatedly went after whole bags of Hershey chocolates, etc. He wasn't phased most of the time, but he had to have his stomach pumped after eating some Kool-Aid mix and an entire prescription of his meds once.

I love dogs, but some breeds will send you to your grave earlier than expected, or wanted.

My old neighbor had 2 bassetts and it took me all of 2 days after moving in to cross that dog off the list of potential pets. Fat, slovenly howlers. Annoying as all get out but I never once worried about them chewing the nose off one of my kids.

[Snipe]

You can read the study done by Cincinnati Children's Hospital here:

Ownership of High Risk Dogs as a Marker for Deviant Behaviors
Implications for Risk Assesment
By Jaclyn E. Barnes, Cincinnati Children's Hospital (http://www.scribd.com/Ownership-High-Risk-Vicious-Dogs-Marker-Deviant-Behaviors-by-Jaclyn-E-Barnes-Barbara-W-Boat-Frank-W-Putnam-Harold-F-Dates-and-Andrew-R-Ma/d/19510507)

Here (http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/12/1616) is the abstract:


This study examined the association between ownership of high-risk ("vicious") dogs and the presence of deviant behaviors in the owners as indicated by court convictions. We also explored whether two characteristics of dog ownership (abiding licensing laws and choice of breed) could be useful areas of inquiry when assessing risk status in settings where children are present. Our matched sample consisted of 355 owners of either licensed or cited dogs that represented high or low-risk breeds. Categories of criminal convictions examined were aggressive crimes, drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, crimes involving children, firearm convictions, and major and minor traffic citations. Owners of cited high-risk ("vicious") dogs had significantly more criminal convictions than owners of licensed low-risk dogs. Findings suggest that the ownership of a high-risk ("vicious") dog can be a significant marker for general deviance and should be an element considered when assessing risk for child endangerment.

This site (http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2008/01/pit-bull-owners-more-likely-to-be.html) summed it up:

"Owners of vicious dogs who have been cited for failing to register a dog (or) failing to keep a dog confined on the premises ... are more than nine times more likely to have been convicted for a crime involving children, three times more likely to have been convicted of domestic violence ... and nearly eight times more likely to be charged with drug (crimes) than owners of low-risk licensed dogs."

When you see a Pit Bull to be on the safe side you should be beware of the dog and the owner. And if people move into your neighborhood with Pit Bulls, you may have problems that are more than just Pit Bulls.

The combination of these "high risk" animals with their "high risk" owners can be a deadly combination.

[XUdenver]

Interesting timing for this article.....


http://cbs4denver.com/local/pitbull.attack.father.2.1395738.html

For the record, I am convinced this breed is vicious, and not worth the aggravation. As some others have so eloquently stated, nothing but a 'prick waving contest' in most cases.

[Juice]

The breed was bred to be aggressive, I don't know how it can be denied.

[nuts4xu]

The breed was bred to be aggressive, I don't know how it can be denied.

Same could be said about our Musketeers!!

We will make 2010 our water fountain!!