Originally Posted by Ellie May (Post 3640456)

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.

Originally Posted by Ellie May (Post 3640456)

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.

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie (Post 3641204)

At first glance I see that-
"DogsBite.org is a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks."
I would like to see where they got thier information from. I have read other sites that claim differently than what they report.

From personal experience of being a victim of a dog bite, I know my view on the breed that bit me was skewed for a long time, unfortunaltely. :(

Originally Posted by Maximo (Post 3641377)

I agree, I would very much like an impartial source for statistics and things that can be established as facts. I don't know why it is so difficult. It is a disservice to everyone on both sides of the debate and the dogs.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 3641409)

I agree, it just seems like if someone even questions if there is a problem, people get so angry and act like we're prejudiced. I really only want the truth.

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie (Post 3641449)

I hope you did not feel this was my intention with my post.

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie (Post 3641213)

Taken from another source:
ASPCA | Breed Specific Legislation
Following a thorough study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided not to support Breed Specific Laws. The CDC cited, among other problems, the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed-breed dogs). The CDC also noted the likelihood that as certain breeds are regulated, those who exploit dogs by making them aggressive will replace them with other, unregulated breeds.

In the aforementioned study, the CDC noted that many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression—things such as heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status, socialization and training. These last two concerns are well-founded, given that:
More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs.
An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog.
A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog who is not chained or tethered.
97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks in 2006 were not spayed/neutered:
78 percent were maintained not as pets, but rather for guarding, image enhancement, fighting or breeding.
84 percent were maintained by reckless owners—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised.

Originally Posted by roseylovestosho (Post 3641445)

I don't think we could ever disentangle the "it's the owner not the breed" argument because people self-select into buying pit bulls. What type of person is more likely to buy a pit bull? Just as an example, two pit bulls live inside a small apartment in my apartment complex. They belong to a couple who I've seen get into arguments outside of my bedroom window and who I saw beat his girlfriend while on her knees in the middle of the night (woke me and Teddy up with the yelling). I've also seen the owner beat his dogs in front of me and Teddy. The only way to truly know whether it is the owner versus the breed would be to randomly assign pit bulls to people and see how they turn out. Unfortunately, while this as scientific as it could get, it is clearly impossible to do. Is there something systematic about the people who are choosing these dogs? I don't know, and I don't think any studies have addressed this properly. I'm not taking a stance...I honestly would feel safer if there weren't pit bulls in my neighborhood just b/c the ones I've met don't give me the fuzzies...it's just something to think about (at least in my opinion).

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie (Post 3641462)

I have one of the many dogs that fall into the generic "pit bull" catergory, Am Staff Terrier. I do not compare myself to someone who chooses this breed to abuse it, mistreat it, or use it for cruel and inhuman purposes. Therefore, I would not think there is anything systematic about those of us who have this breed.
I have Ernie because my husband fell in love with this breed after spending time with his parents.