Oh I see. Thank you for letting me know. I really hate deception whether its from the media or special interest groups or anyone really. It makes you question everything they say and advocate. They would get so much farther from being honest and taking their lumps when they need to take them

:thumbup::thumbup: We have a large percentage of pit bulls/mixes in our neighborhood. Sadly, many of their owners are so desperate to prove they are just another breed that they put my doggies at risk. I don't like any off-leash dogs, even when they are in their own front yard (unfenced) and I don't think my dogs' safety should be risked for the sake of someone trying to prove that their dogs are well-trained or gentle or well-socialized. I know if something happens, like the dog charges into the street, my dogs will be blamed because my dogs barked first. Several people have already made it a point to tell me that the reason their large dogs jump around wildly and bark when we pass them is that my dogs barked at them first, long ago. :rolleyes:

I hate it too, I mean the internet is great about finding information, but so much of it is false, and you have to really check the source and find out who wrote it. Was it an independent source like a newspaper, or was it a private group? Even some "newspapers" aren't really independent and are backed by special interest groups, but you can often tell by the editorial tone on how biased they are. There are certain facts known with every case, such as “autopsy reports not in”, or “preliminary autopsy reports suggest that . . . " and it should be included in the report before editorial conclusions are given.

'They didn't try to help'' as dog attacked child | The Australian Here's another one from my Google News homepage.

I dont know what needs to be done but I know something needs to be. I dont want to see govt regulate them because they regulate enough and is that a smart use of tax dollars. I do know one thing though the existance of a certain breed of dog isnt more important to me than a human life.

Well, we certainly spend tax dollars on more ridiculous things than saving human lives when you hear some of the stories and read some of the articles to see the fanciful things we do pay for all the time. But I do think some type of laws are going to have to be made to enact some type of retribution on the owners of dogs that cause severe injuries that require medical treatment or that kill.

I haven't heard about the locking jaw being a physical feature of pitbull types but I do read in numerous places that bully breeds, particularly those bred to fight, are prized for their tenacity to hold the victim after clamping down. With the natural tendency of any dog to shake things they bite teamed with a strong genetic predisposition to hold the bite despite pain or other distractions, this type of an animal is potentially very dangerous to any bite victims. I think that is what the fighters breed for and just like terriers and their aggressive/tenacious ways that make up part of the terrier type of dog's temperament, that pitbull type breed tendency just goes on and on through the generations. In a big, powerful breed, bite-hold tenacity is certainly scarey. My son playing tugowar with his American Bulldog actually broke the high-test tugowar toy! His dog would bite and hold and continue to bite hard in the same place as they were playing and during one very long contest, his dog bit through the huge tugowar toy! I think he's replaced more than one of those since and he gets the biggest, toughest ones they have so these bully breeds' tenacity and ability to bite and hold is ferocious.

I know that if you can't roll up into a ball facing downward and protect your ears and sides of your face, offer them a forearm to clamp on as you try to otherwise disable the dog and scream for help. I know the least damage they can do in the long run is the outside of the forearm, as there is less critical arterial structure, etc., there and just letting them have that part of your body may save your life. If they don't get something to bite and hold, they will go after other critical parts that are far harder to lose, repair, etc.

My point was should they put laws that cost taxpayers money to regulate a breed of dog or just simply ban it.

You mean which is cheaper, since it would take tax dollars to put the ban in place and then regulate/oversee/prosecute those breaking the ban? One way or another, we the people pay for these big dog-related attacks anytime a city/county/state service involved so whether we try to ban or regulate or prosecute breeders and/or owners, it will cost us all lots of money. After my latest look at the Dow, am thinking there is no heart for any kind of legislation or spending more $ now on anything except status quo.

Thats probably why they havent done anything up to now is because it would cost money to regulate it and there hasnt been a big outcry for it.

I think you are 100% correct. Matter of money.

I think anyone owning one should be required to carry some kind of insurance on them so that is they do attack the victim or the family could be conpensated but I dont know how they would oversee that. I think if people had to carry an expensive insurance to own one their would be alot less people owning them

That's a really good idea but how would the city or county know whether a purchaser of one of these dogs ever bought insurance? There would have to be an agency in each city and county to try to oversee and police sales. Would it rely on voluntary reporting by the breeder each time they sold a pit? Or the purhaser? And then if they didn't have the insurance, after an attack, somebody's got to prosecute for that and that takes a dedicated arm of some agency and tax $. I wish there were something we could do that would not involve the government, but there really isn't. And the victims will keep on adding up. I tell you that poor little girl I saw on the news a while back that was having her 57th surgery after her pit mauling was so sad and awful. That poor little thing is in terrible shape after all that pain and time and medical costs in the hundreds of thousands probably. She is missing a huge portion of her scalp, her face is still so scared and disfigured and her eye and so much else is wrong from all that dog did to her. So, so sad and you get so mad you just want to go out and shake some of those owners when you see them letting their big powerful dog out of the car totally off leash. But everybody thinks their dog won't hurt anyone.

That is sad and what is sadder is that it is totally preventable. Every one should have control of their dog at all times and all owners should be held accountable when they dont have their dog under control. I see where Govt will have to be involved but i think they should put accountability on the breeders and the owners

I do too. If they are going to have one of those potentially dangerous dog breeds, at least do the things that it takes to ensure the public at large and members of the family of the dog will be safe. But since they won't or don't do that 100% of the time, we have these deaths and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in medical bills each year. And if the human victim is on public assistance/Medicaid, we all pay for all those medical expenses that the attacking dog owners don't pay for in most instances, I would bet. I sure wish we could make those owners have to step up and keep us safe and when they don't, somehow make them do right without some public agency involvement. That would be a perfect world, wouldn't it. And so nice.

These stories really bother me because it is very apparent that "pit bulls" get way too much media attention. Many dogs cause serious harm daily and they are not all "pit bulls". I feel unsafe around chow chows, husky/malamutes, dingo type dogs, and even some german shepherds. A couple of these make the dangerous dog/do not insure lists, yet they rarely come up in conversations when people think "pit bulls" are the problem.

Big dogs cause more injury than little dogs. That certainly doesn't mean all big dogs should be banned. Yes, they have strong jaws. That's a reason to want to ban them?? I don't take human injury or death lightly; however, I also don't think the media is at all fair when choosing the cases that they report. There is a such thing as media bias and there is no way to know to what extent taht exists unless really digging into it. Perhaps "pit bulls" do kill more than any other breed, but perhaps they are the most abundant in the US. The AKC list is far from perfect. There are tons of pits here. I would expect a dog that is the most popular to be blamed for all the problems. The many dog fighters in Detroit do not register their dogs and they certainly aren't going to submit to having their dogs insured. They just hide them more. That is probably how the breed numbers are out of control as far as population goes. They can be used for fighting. They make people money. If the government spent more time dealing with the people who fight them, then perhaps there wouldn't be so many pit puppies in the world. IMO, deal with the criminals who own these dogs and give them more than a few days in jail. Then you will have less to deal with as far as trying to legislate a breed away.

And I do think it is completely unfair to just say pit bulls are bad. Pit bull is not a breed. There are like 3 breeds and 2 others that sometmes look like pits. So maybe if we don't know which exact breed is responsible, perhaps it's only fair to divide the number of attacks by 3.

I'm very sorry for this family's loss. Still though, we weren't there and don't know what happened. Yes, the dog attacked her which was completely unacceptable, but we have no idea if the human initiated and was being abusive, etc.

Just because they can kill a person easier than the next breed doesn't mean that they are mean and horrible. I'll deal with one over a shepherd anyday. Much more friendly to strangers in general.